616 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This is my reply. The Canandians and the Australians have not found it necessary to delete this provision even at this stage. They are quite satisfied that the retention of this provision in section 55 of the Canadian Act is fully compatible with responsible government. If they had felt that this provision was not compatible with responsible government, they have even today, as Dominions, the fullest right to abrogate this provision, They have not done so. Therefore, in reply to Pandit Kunzru, I can very well say that the Canadians and the Australians do not think that such a provision is an infringement of responsible government.
Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa : General) : On a point of order, Sir, are we going to have the status of Canada or Australia ? Or are we going to have a Republican Constitution ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I could not follow what he said. If, as I hope, the House is satisfied that the existence of a provision vesting a certain amount of discretion in the Governor is not incompatible or inconsistent with responsible government, there can be no dispute that the retention of this clause is desirable and, in my judgment, necessary. The only question that arises is……..
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : Well, Dr. Ambedkar has missed the point of the criticism altogether. The criticism is not that in article
175 some powers might not be given to the Governor, the criticism is against vesting the Governor with certain discretionary powers of a general nature in the article under discussion.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think he has misread the article. I am sorry I do not have the draft Constitution with me. “Except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution,” those are the words. If the words were “except whenever he thinks that he should exercise this power of discretion against the wishes or against the advice of the ministers,” then I think the criticism made by my honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru would have been valid. The clause is a very limited clause; it says : “except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution”. Therefore, article 143 will have to be read in conjunction with such other articles which specifically reserve the power to the Governor. It is not a general clause giving the Governor power to disregard the advice of his ministers in any matter in which he finds he ought to disregard. There, I think, lies the fallacy of the argument of my honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru.
Therefore, as I said, having stated that there is nothing incompatible with the retention of the discretionary power in the Governor in specified cases with the system of responsible Government. The only question