PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 91
Dr. Ambedkar : Parliament is not a Court.
Parliament (Prevention of disqualification) Bill
- Mr. Deputy Speaker : Dr. Ambedkar.
Dr. Ambedkar : I find that Members have really travelled ground which is far away from the main proposition embodied in this Bill. I have been asked to explain how this doubt arose. In whose mind did it arise first ? I have been asked to explain how is it that in no other country such as Australia or Canada is any such legislation found necessary ?
Well, with regard to the first point, I have no hesitation in saying that I myself felt doubts. I admit that, because notwithstanding many allegations that have been made, I was to some extent responsible for the framing of the Constitution. I have no hesitation in saying that I do not know of any Constitution in the world which can be said to be proof against doubt or against any kind of wrong understanding. Otherwise, if every Constitution was proof against doubt that would not have been these voluminous decisions of the various Supreme Courts in the different countries. Therefore, if I felt even as Chairman of the Drafting Committee that there was doubt in this matter, I am not ashamed to acknowledge it and there is nothing cavalierly in my behaviour when I say there is some doubt in this matter.
I shall explain why I felt there was doubt. My friend, Mr. Krishnamachari said that the phrase ‘Council of Ministers’ was taken really from the Government of India Act, 1935 where the language used was ‘Council of Ministers’ and that language was evidently borrowed by the draftsmen of the
1935 Act from the older Act where the words were ‘Executive Council’. Now, I felt that if anybody was to interpret the phrase ‘Council of Ministers’ he would, no doubt, be justified in taking into consideration the circumstances in which that phrase ‘Executive Council’ was used, and would be justified, in interpreting the intention of the phrase ‘Council of
*P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 10th March 1950, pp. 1360-64.