z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-03.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 198
198 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
“motion” anywhere here. What I would like to submit is that no person would be in a position to make another motion unless the Bill is called on by the Secretary. That means that the Bill must be on the agenda. Secondly, it must be on the order paper; and thirdly, it must be called on by the Secretary. My submission is that no member who is in charge of a Bill should be penalised by this motion as be would be unless the Bill has been called on by the Secretary ; otherwise my submission is that there would be no default.
The Honourable the Speaker: That would be more or less an argument upon the merits of the rule.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is what I said. This was the third consideration. The first two were ............
The Honourable the Speaker: I think I may first dispose of the first two and then the honourable member may address his argument with regard to the difficulties as an argument on merits.
Two points have been raised, the first of which is that it is not competent for this House to frame a rule of this type in view of the provisions of section
73 of the Government of India Act. I had considered this aspect because this objection was suggested by the Honourable the Prime Minister when rule
103 was taken up for consideration last time. Sub-clause (2) of section 73 provides that a Bill pending in the Legislature shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Chamber or Chambers. It is undoubtedly provided that it shall not lapse by reason of prorogation, but it does not mean, therefore, that a Bill can never lapse for reasons other than prorogation. What the rule purports to provide is that after a certain period, irrespective of prorogation or otherwise, a Bill shall lapse. There may have been possibly some room for doubt if the phraseology had been “two complete Sessions”. But when a specific period is sought to be provided, namely, a period of one year, as under this rule, as is now proposed, a Bill may lapse even while the Session is going on. So prorogation of a Session is not the reason for the lapsing of a Bill under the rule as proposed.
I am not dealing with the merits. I am only dealing with the constitutional aspect. The rule as proposed requires that although a Bill may be shown on the agenda and the House may be in Session, still the moment the period of one year is completed, it will automatically lapse without the Session being prorogued. Therefore, to my mind, sub-clause (2) of section 73 of the Government of India Act, is not a bar to the making of a rule as proposed by the amendment.
Then the second objection is raised as regards—
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I draw your attention to one fact, Sir ? My submission is, if the word “only” was there, then the construction you propose to put upon it would be proper.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, with regard to the amendment proposed, what I would like to submit is this. I have not heard any particular reason