750 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is a matter of expediency and practicality.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : He admits it is a question of expediency and practicality....
*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, as I listened to the debate, I find that there are some very specific questions which have been raised by the various speakers who have taken part in the debate. The first point was raised by my Friend Mr. Santhanam and I would like to dispose of that before I turn to the other points. Mr. Santhanam said that a provision ought to be made in clause (1) of the article to provide for a case where the Upper House has not passed the Bill in the form in which it was passed by the Assembly. I think that on further consideration, he will find that his suggestion is actually embodied in sub-clause(c), although that clause has been differently worded. We have as a matter of fact provided for three cases on the occurrence of which the Lower House will take jurisdiction to act on its own authority. The three cases are : firstly when the Bill is considered but rejected completely; secondly, when the Upper House is either sitting tight and taking no action or has taken action but has delayed beyond the time which is permitted to it for consideration of the Bill ; and thirdly, when they do not agree to pass the Bill in the same form in which it lias been passed by the Assembly, which practically means what my Friend Mr. Santhanam is suggesting. I therefore do not think there is any necessity to revise this part of the article. I might say incidentally that in devising the three categories or conditions on the occurrences of which the Lower House would have the power to act on its own authority, the words have more or less been taken closely from article
57 of the Australian Constitution.
Now, I come to the general points that have been raised. It seems to me in discussing this matter, there are three different questions that arise for consideration. The first question is how many journeys the Bill should undertake before the will of the Lower House becomes paramount. Should it be one journey, two journeys or more than two journeys ? That is one question. The second question is, what should be the period that should be allotted to the Upper House for each journey,
- CAD, Vol. IX, dated 30th July 1949, pp. 57-59.