The difference between the proposed amendment and the original article is this: whereas in the original article the grants made by the House of the People will have to be authenticated by the President, according to this amendment, an Appropriation Bill will be moved before the House of the People and passed. That is the only difference that I find. In his introductory speech, Dr.Ambedkar said that in the past the Governor-General used to authenticate the expenditure granted by the Assembly for several reasons. He had to act in his discretion and in his individual judgment and therefore it was necessary that this table of expenditure approved by the Assembly should go before him so that he may make any changes he pleases. These circumstances do not exist now; although the President is there as the executive head, it is more appropriate and more democratic that the House of the People should approve the table of expenditure which it has granted. That is the argument advanced by him. I entirely agree with him that the President or any executive head should not authenticate the expenditure, but it is the House of the People only that should do it. The question is whether an Appropriation Bill is necessary and what is the purpose of this Appropriation Bill. If it is merely to authenticate the several grants that have been made by the House of the People, why should there be an Appropriation Bill? As stated in clause (2) of this amendment, no amendment shall be proposed to the Bill, and no changes could be proposed in the matter of the expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund. What is the purpose, then, I ask, of having an Appropriation Bill brought before the House of the People? If you want that after the grants have been made by the House, a table of the grants should be placed before the House, I agree. This Schedule of expenditure will be approved by the House automatically. It is a mere formality. Whereas in the case of the Governor-General, he had the right to interfere in his discretion and in his individual judgment, now there is no scope for that at all. It is merely a formality to place the Schedule of grants that are made by the House from day to day, and get it sanctioned. The House passes that Schedule automatically. Therefore, I do not see any reason why this Appropriation Bill should be brought before the House at all. If you want to call it an Appropriation Bill, because some other Governments have called it an Appropriation Bill, it is just an unnecessary thing. That can be done by stating that instead of the President, the House of the People will authenticate the schedule of expenditure granted by a certain date; that would be enough. Therefore, Sir, my submission is that it serves no useful purpose at all, as Mr. Santhanam put it. It will serve no useful purpose because, when this Appropriation Bill is brought before the House the House cannot move any amendment to that and cannot change the expenditure charged to the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, I say, why go through this process of placing an Appropriation Bill before the House? It is just enough to say that the Schedule of expenditure granted by the House of the People will be laid before the House of the People, which must be considered to have been authenticated. If necessary, the signature of the Speaker of the House of the People authenticating that these items have been passed by the House of the People is enough. Therefore, my submission is that the manner in which the article has been re-drafted is unnecessary and that appropriate changes should be made with regard to this matter and that it is quite enough to say that the schedule of expenditure granted by the House should be placed before the House of the People and it should be deemed to have been authenticated. Sir, I am not now referring to any matters that are going to be moved under article 95 and 96. I reserve my remarks thereon.
