Sir, while there may be no material objection to the substitution of the original article by this new article, I cannot help feeling that this is a wholly unnecessary formality inflicted on our procedure. Dr.Ambedkar no doubt explained that we are trying to adapt our procedure to the procedure of the House of Commons, but there is one material difference which he has not touched upon. In the House of Commons, votes on estimates are taken in committee, the whole House going into committee. The votes taken there have no legal validity. Therefore, they have to put in a special Appropriation Act to give legal validity to the votes taken. But our procedure is that the votes on demands for grants are taken in the full House with the Speaker in the Chair. Therefore, the votes are as valid as the Appropriation Act itself. When once votes are taken in the House it is not possible for anyone to change them. Therefore, I do not see why we should again have the procedure of a Bill and a vote taken. After all it is provided that you cannot make any change whatsoever in the Bill. When the House has legally done something I do not see any particular purpose in again bringing it as a Bill and providing for further speeches wasting two or three days of the time of the Legislature.
