Sir, my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath has moved an interesting amendment which says that the words “salaries and allowances of Ministers and Members of Parliament” should be added to the sub-clause so that they will be a charge on the revenues of India. It means that they will not be votable with the result that the executive will become an irremovable one. I am rather perplexed at this. The charges which will be charged on the revenues of India are the salaries of the President, the Speaker, the Judges of the Supreme Court and now the Auditor-General. They will become non-votable under article 93. I do not know whether the sovereign parliament of the nation should be denied the opportunity to vote upon the salaries of even these high dignitaries. Probably Mr. Kamath wants to reduce the provisions of this article to an absurdity; otherwise there is no meaning in his amendment. I agree that we are bringing in a dangerous thing in the Constitution by these provisions. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of Prof. Shah for deleting the last clause, which says that parliament can declare any expenditure to be non-votable. This, I think, is unprecedented in any constitution of the world and I would like Dr.Ambedkar to enlighten us how sub-clause (f) of article 93 is in consonance with democratic procedure. I feel that the sovereign parliament of the nation should have the right vote on every item of expenditure. I can see some argument for making the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Auditor-General and the Speaker to be charged to the revenues of the State. It is possible that a party in power by a majority might vote down the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court so that the judges will try to humour the party in power and that will detract from their independence. But this is far-fetched and no party dare vote down salaries of Supreme Court Judges, etc. That the salaries of the other people should also be permitted to become non-votable is not fair. Clause (f) must go.
