DRAFT CONSTITUTION 483
deep, that he has been persisting in moving the other amendments which, as he himself knows, are only consequential and have no substance in themselves. I therefore do not mind the dig that he has had at the Drafting Committee,
The other proposition which Prof. K. T. Shah has sought to introduce in the Constitution is that there should be a concurrence of the other House. He has evidently decided to accept the main scheme embodied in the Draft Constitution. What he wants is that even if the one House which has investigated the offence has come to a conclusion, that conclusion ought not to have effect unless it has been adopted by the other House. I cannot understand why, for instance, the verdict of a jury—and this is no doubt a sort of jury, which will investigate and come to a conclusion—I do not understand why the verdict of one House, which it would have come to after investigation should be submitted to another jury. I have never known of any such principle or percedent at all. Secondly, I do not understand what is to be the effect if the other House does not adopt . Is the other House required to adopt only by bare majority or two-thirds majority ? Supposing the other House does not adopt the conclusion which has been arrived at by one House, what is to be done ? Obviously there will be a tie. Prof. K. T. Shah provided in my judgment, no remedy for the dissolution of that tie. For these reasons, I am unable to accept any of the amendments moved by Prof. K. T. Shah.
There is another amendment which I might deal with because it is analogous to the amendments moved by Prof. K. T. Shah, and that is amendment No. 1178 moved by my Friend, Mr. Mohd. Tahir. He says that it is unnecessary to provide for a two-thirds majority for a charge of being guilty of violation of the Constitution. He thinks that a bare majority is enough. Now, Sir, I think my Friend, Mr. Mohd. Tahir has not taken sufficient notice of the fact that a motion for impeachment is very different from a motion of no confidence. A motion of no confidence does not involve any shame or moral turpitude. A motion of no confidence merely means that the party does not accept or the House does not accept the policy of the Government. Beyond that no other censure is involved in a no confidence motion. But, an impeachment motion stands on a totally different footing. If a man is convicted on a motion for impeachment, it practically amounts to the ruination