z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-10.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 751
EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS 751
position is now ?
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It matters because I want to ask what the exact position is. Section 52, sub-section 2 is : “No Minister shall hold office for a longer period than six months unless he is or becomes an elected Member of the Local Legislature.” All I wanted to suggest was that the Act does not contemplate the continued holding of a nominated member as a Minister. which would be the case if the suggestions in the White Paper were adopted, that a nominated Member of the Second Chamber would be entitled to be a Minister. With respect to the appointment of the Ministry, I want to draw your attention to the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Provincial Constitution. They said: “The Sub-Committee is of the opinion that in the discharge of that function the Governor should ordinarily summon the Member possessing the largest following in the Legislature and invite him to suggest the Ministers and submit their names for approval.” Paragraph
67 says that he shall make “his best endeavours to select his Ministers in the following manner”—which I regard as a considerable departure from the recommendation of the Provincial Constitution Committee ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: I do not think there is any departure at all. The Committee said ‘ordinarily’, and this is, I imagine, what will ordinarily happen.
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You do not think it would be necessary, in the interests of fostering collective responsibility, to impose an obligation upon the Government that he should follow a particular course in the formation of the Ministry ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: The Round Table Committee that Dr. Ambedkar quotes did not think so.
- Dr. B. R: Ambedkar: I thought that was the thing ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: You have just read a quotation from them saying “ordinarily” they thought so.
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Or that they should do it —not “best endeavour” ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: It is a question of words.
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The next question I want to ask is on the question of this ordinance power of the Ministers under Proposal 104. What I want to know is this : Why is it necessary to make a provision of this sort in the Constitution itself ? Would not it be possible for a Ministry in a Provincial Legislature to have an Emergency Act passed by the Legislature itself similar, for instance, to that of 1920 in this country, and to derive its powers from the Acts passed by the Legislature ? I am talking about No.
104 : Would not it be possible for the Provincial Ministry to have an Act passed by the Provincial Legislature giving them the necessary powers to act in a specified emergency ?