292 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
House. There is no such proviso with regard to article 372. Therefore my submission was that there is really no privilege involved and the question of breach of privilege therefore cannot arise.
Pandit Maitra (West Bengal) : Sir, are you going to allow a general discussion as to whether or not this is a question of privilege ....
Shri Bharati (Madras) : The Chair has already ruled that there was no question of privilege.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not deciding the question of privilege at all. In as much as there was a reference by Mr. Husain Imam to the word privilege, the Hon. Law Minister thought that he must answer that other point also. He has now placed his view point. That question does not arise now and therefore I will not go into it.
[M R . D EPUTY -S PEAKER in the Chair .]
- Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may resume after we hear the Hon. the Law Minister.
Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I have applied my mind to the points which you were good enough to put to me and I would like to submit my opinion about those points.
The real question that the House has to consider is whether this Bill offends against Article 117—either clause (1) of that article, or clause (3) of that article. Those are the main points that are to be considered and the clauses which require to be considered in the light of Article 117 are clauses (4), (5) and (6) of the Bill.
I should take clauses (5) and (6) together. Now it is contended that those clauses offend against clause (1) of Article
- The validity of that contention must depend upon the meaning that is to be attached to the word “appropriation” occurring in sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of Article 110 which defines what is a “Money Bill”. Now, I am quite certain in my mind that the word “appropriation” which is used in
- P. D., Vol. 10, Part II, 12th April 1951, pp. 6725-27.