DRAFT CONSTITUTION 749
(b) more than one month elapses from the date on which the Bill is laid before the Council without the Bill being passed by it; or
(c) the Bill is passed by the Council with amendments to which the Legislative Assembly does not agree ; the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of the Legislature of the State in the form in which it was passed by the Legislative Assembly with such amendments if any, as have been agreed to by the Legislative Assembly.
(3) Nothing in this article shall apply to a Money Bill.’”
The House will remember that when we discussed the question of the resolution of the differences between the Council of States and the House of the People, we discussed the different methods by which such differences would be resolved, and we came to the conclusion that having regard to the Federal character of the Central Legislature it was proper that the differences between the two Houses should be resolved by a joint session of both the Houses called by the President for that purpose. It was at that time suggested that instead of adopting the procedure of a joint session we should adopt the procedure contained in the Parliament Act of 1911 under which the decision of the House of Commons with regard to any particular Bill, other than a Money Bill prevails in the final analysis when the House of Lords has failed to agree or refused to agreee, to the amendment suggested by the House of Commons after a certain period has elapsed. On a consideration of this matter, it was felt that the procedure laid down in the Parliament Act for the resolution of the differences between the two Houses of the Legislature was more appropriate for the resolution of difference between the two Houses set up in the Provinces. Consequently we have made a departure from the original article and introduce this new article embodying in it the proposal that the decision of the more popular House representing the people as a whole ought to prevail in case of a difference of opinion which the two Houses have not been able to reconcile by mutual agreement.
Sir, I move.
*Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : ...I think considering the changes that have been made by the Drafting Committee itself from time to time there is no principle on which it is proceeding. My honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar says there is a very good principle.
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I say there is no principle.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : I am glad my honourable Friend admits that there is no principle underlying the amendment that he has suggested to the House.
- CAD, Vol. IX, date 1st August 1949, p. 52.