Mr. President, Sir, this amendments to substitute a new article for article 94 has been fully dealt with by Dr.Ambedkar in his speech day before yesterday while outlining the nature and scope of the changes that the Drafting Committee have sought to make in the scheme of financial control. He made it every plain that this suggestion of an Appropriation Bill is to substitute the authentication of the President, a practice which has been followed all along for reasons totally different from what we have in mind about the new set up of the Constitution of this country. Sir, it must also be understood that there has been no vital change in the procedure. Dr.Ambedkar was at great pains to explain to the House that the changes made are such that they are only enabling provisions, to give power, to the Parliament if it so desires, to make changes in the scheme of financial control and in the discussion of the budget and the procedure to be followed thereon, and very rightly he has drawn attention to the new article that is proposed, viz., 98-A, whereby Parliament would have the complete right and freedom to do what it likes in regard to the laying down of any procedure if it so wishes. The article before the House involves merely a change in the nomenclature rather than one of substance. Instead of the President authenticating the decisions arrived at when the voting on demands is carried on in the House, the House will take upon itself the duty by making the executive present the whole set up of decisions in a concrete form which it will then approve, and the rules with regard to the discussion on such an Appropriation Bill will be made by Parliament by the Speaker of the House until Parliament itself makes the rules. Sir, I fail to appreciate the basis, the validity of the complaint made by my honourable Friend, Mr. Santhanam, who, as the other speakers before him have stated, is one of the most well-informed critics of the Constitution as well as of procedure in the House and who had been taking a lot of interest in the budget activities in the Parliament before his elevation to the Ministry. His objection apparently was not fundamental, though he failed to see the necessity for an amendment of this nature. He did not raise any fundamental objection to the changes sought to be made by the Drafting Committee. Sir, the objection that he raised to clause (3) of article 94, which enables the operation of articles 95 and 96 that follow hereafter arises, in my view, from an imperfect understanding of the scheme.
