PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 99
(12)
MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
- Shri Gopalaswami : May I just point out that Mr. Chamberlain was not on a question of motion for adjournment of debate ?
Pandit Kunzru : Well, I think Dr. Ambedkar relying on the reply given by Sir N. N. Sircar on the basis of Mr. Chamberlain’s reply came to the conclusion that in a matter like this there was no essential difference between a demand for information and a demand for discussion. The word used by Sir N. N. Sircar in his reply was “discussion” and that is the word that my Hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar relied on.
The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I should like to say just one word with regard to the comment of my hon. friend on the reply given by Mr. Chamberlain and his attempt to establish a sort of analogy between the position which existed when that question was put and the position that will arise under article 371 of our Constitution. I should request him to bear in mind the essential distinction that exists between our Constitution now and the Government of India Act, 1935. That distinction is this, that while Parliament did enact the Act of 1935 and transferred certain responsibilities to the people of India, they never failed to emphasise time and over again, that the ultimate responsibility for the good Government in India rested with Parliament, and therefore, to the extent that the power was reserved of giving directions it was really responsible for maintaining good Government; while under our Constitution we have given over the power of maintaining good Government to our States and only in some cases we have reserved to the Centre certain powers of direction. That distinction has to be borne in mind.
- P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 14th March 1950, pp. 1512-13. .