558 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
these remarks really exaggerate the position and have really no bearing on the problem. I support the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as amended by Shrimati Durgabai’s amendment.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am prepared to accept the amendment of Shrimati Durgabai. I cannot accept any other amendment.
Mr. President: Do you wish to reply ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think it is necessary for me to reply except to say that if I accept the amendment of Shrimati Durgabai, it would in certain respects be inconsistent with article 152 and 55, because in the case of the provincial Upper House we have fixed the limit at thirty-five and also for the Vice-President we have the age limit at thirty-five. It seems to me that even if this distinction remains, it would not matter very much. Further still it is open to the House, if the House so wishes, to prescribe a uniform age limit.
Mr. President : I will now put the amendment to vote
[Following amendment of Smt. Durgabai was adopted.]
“That in the new article 68-A proposed for insertion after article 68, in clause (b) for the word ‘thirty-five’ the word ‘thirty’ be substituted.”
Article 68-A as amended was added to the Constitution.
ARTICLE 69
*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambekar : Sir, I regret that I cannot accept any of the amendments which have been moved to this article. I do not think that any of the amendments except the one which I have chosen now for my reply calls for any comment. The amendments moved by Prof. Shah raise certain points. His first amendment (No. 1470) and his second amendment (No. 1479) refer more or less to the same subject and consequently I propose to take them together to dispose of the arguments that he has urged. In those two amendments Prof. Shah insists that the interval between any two sessions of the Parliament shall not exceed three months. That is the sum and substance of the two amendments.
I might also take along with these two amendments of Prof. Shah the amendment of Mr. Kamath (No. 1471) because it also raises the same question. It seems to me that neither Prof. Shah nor Mr. Kamath has understood the reasons why these clauses were originally introduced in
*CAD, Vol. VIII, 18th May 1949. pp. 104-07.