620 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
- Mr . President: ...Dr. Ambedkar.
*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, in the course of tills debate on the various amendments moved I have noticed that there are only lour points which call for a reply. The first point raised in the debate is that instead of the provision that the Ministers shall hold office during pleasure it is desired that provision should be made that they shall hold office while they have the confidence of the majority of the House. Now, I have no doubt about it that it is the intention of this Constitution that the Ministry shall hold office during such time as it holds the confidence of the majority. It is on that principle that the Constitution will work. The reason why we have not so expressly stated it is because it has not been slated in that fashion or in those terms in any of the Constitutions which lay down a parliamentary system of Government. ‘During pleasure’ is always understood lo mean that the ‘pleasure’ shall not continue notwithstanding the fact that the Ministry has lost the confidence of the majority. The moment the Ministry has lost the confidence of the majority it is presumed that the President will exercise his ‘pleasure’ in dismissing the Ministry and therefore it is unneccessary to differ from what I may say the stereotyped phraseology which is used in all responsible governments. The amendment of my Friend Prof. Saksena, substituting the words “Lower House” I am afraid, cannot be accepted, because under the provisions of the Constitution, it is open to the Prime Minister not only to select his Ministers from the Lower, but also from the Upper House. It is not the scheme that the Minister shall be taken only from the Lower House and not from (he Upper House. Consequently the provision that the Minister shall be appointed for six months, although he is not elected must be MO extensive as to cover both cases, and for that reason I am unable to accept his amendment.
The third amendment which has been considerably debated was moved by my Friend Mr. Kamath and Prof. Shah. With minor amendments, they are more or less of the same tenor. In that connection, what I would like to say is tills, that the House will recall that amendment No. 1332 to article 62, which is a provision analogous to article 144, was moved by Prof. Shah and was debated at considerable
- CAD, Vol. VIII, 1st June 1949, p. 520-21.
† Ibid p.p. 520-21.