674 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
I have no doubt about it that if the expenditure was voted in Committee of .Supply and the resolutions of the House of Commons were to be treated as final authority, they would have also been condemned by Courts of law, because it is an established proposition that what operates is law and not resolution. Therefore my first submission is this : that the point made by my Friend Mr. Santhanam, that the Appropriation Bill procedure is somehow an integral part of the Committee procedure of the House of Commons has no foundation whatsoever. I have already submitted why the procedure of an authenticated schedule by the GovernorGeneral is both uncalled for, having regard to the altered provision of the President who has no function in his discretion or in his individual judgment, and how in matters of finance the authority of Parliament should be supreme, and not the authority of the executive as represented by the President. I therfore need say nothing more on this point.
Then my Friend, Mr. Santhanam, said, if I understood him correctly, that article 95—I do not know whether he referred to article 96; but he certainly referred to article 95—would nullify clause (3) of the new article 94. Clause (3) stated that no money could be spent except under an appropriation made by law. He seemed to be under the impression that supplementary, additional or excess grants which are mentioned in new article 95, and votes on account, or votes on credit or exceptional grants mentioned in the new article 96 would be voted without an Appropriation law. I think he has not completely read the article. If he were to read sub-clause (2) of the new article 95 as well as the last para of new article 96 and also a further article which will be moved at a later stage—winch is article 248A—he will see that there is a provision made that the moneys can be drawn, whether for supplementary or additional grants or for votes on account or for any purpose, without a provision made by law for drawing moneys on Consolidated Fund. I can quite understand the confusion which probably has arisen in the minds of many Members by reason of the fact that in some place we speak of a Consolidated Fund Act while in another place we speak of an Appropriation Act. The point is this : fundamentally, there is no difference between a Consolidated Fund Act and an Appropriation Act. Both have the same purpose, namely, the purpose of authorising an authority duly constituted to draw moneys from the Consolidated Fund.