DRAFT CONSTITUTION 1149
or in the name of the Government, then also that particular person or that particular officer must be specifically defined. Otherwise a large litigation may arise in a court of law in which the questions as to the delegation by President, the question as to the authority of any particular individual exercising the powers vested in the Union President may become matters of litigation. Those who have been familiar with litigation in our courts will remember that famous case of Shibnath Banerjee versus Government of Bengal. Under the Defence of India Act, the Governor had made certain rules authorising certain persons to arrest certain individuals who committed offences against the Defence of India Act. The question was raised as to whether the particular individual who ordered the arrest under that particular law had the authority to act and in order to satisfy itself the Calcutta High Court called upon the Government of Bengal to prove to its satisfaction that the particular individual who was authorised to arrest was the individual meant by the Government of Bengal. The Government of Bengal had to produce its rules of business for the inspection of the Court before the Court was satisfied that the person who exercised the authority was the person meant by the rules of business.
It is in order to avoid this kind of litigation as to delegation of authority for acts, that we thought, it was necessary to introduce a provision like article 77, This article of course does not take away the powers of the Parliament to make a law permitting other persons to have delegated authority as to permit them to act in the name of the Government of India. But while Parliament does make such a provision, it is necessary that the President shall so act as to avoid any kind of litigation that may arise otherwise.
With regard to article 100 which relates to the question of quorum, I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say anything in reply. All that I would say is that, there is a fear having regard to the comparative figures relating to quorum prescribed in other legislative bodies in other countries that the quorum originally fixed was probably too high and we therefore suggested that the quorum should be reduced. The Drafting Committees’ proposal is not an absolute proposal, because it is made subject to law made by Parliament. If Parliament after a certain amount of experience as to quorum comes to the conclusion that it is possible to carry on the business of Parliament with a higher quorum, there is nothing to prevent Parliament from altering this provision as contained in article 100. The provision therefore is very elastic and permits the