DRAFT CONSTITUTION 741
as to the composition of the upper chamber. Consequently they decided—you might say that they merely decided to postpone the difficulty—to leave the matter to Parliament. At the present moment I do not think that the Drafting Committee could suggest any definite proposal for the adoption of the House, and therefore they have adopted what might be called the line of least resistance in proposing sub-clause (2) of article 150. That, as I said, also creates an anomaly, namely, that the Constitution prescribes that certain provinces shall have a second chamber, as is done in article 148-A, but leaves the matter of determining the composition of the second chamber to Parliament.
These are, of course, anomalies. For the moment there is no method of resolving those anomalies, and I therefore request the House to accept, for the present, the proposals of the Drafting Committee as embodied in article 150 which I have moved.
[Amendment No. 90 of List III (First Week) was not moved.]
Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I move :
“That in amendment No. 5 of List I (First Week) of Amendments to Amendments, in clause (2) of the proposed article 150, for the words ‘the qualifications to be possessed for being chosen’ the words ‘qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Council’ be substituted.’
The House will see that on a previous occasion with regard to the election of members to the legislature of a State they adopted various articles in the relevant parts. I would invite the attention of the House to article 167 for instance, which lays down the disqualifications for membership of the State Assembly in addition to the qualifications which have gone before. In providing for representation in the upper chamber and election of members to this Council I do not see why this House should not with equal validity, equal reason and equal force lay down not merely the qualifications of members to be chosen to the upper chamber but also what the disqualifications should be. Article 167 lays down how under various circumstances a member is to be disqualified for being chosen as or being a member of the Assembly or the Council of a State. Therefore I do not see any reason why the same thing should not be explicitly stated in article 150 moved by Dr. Ambedkar.
There is one other point about the article and that is this. The new amendment lays down that the strengthf of the Council shall not exceed one-fourth or 25 per cent of the total number of members in the lower