Mr. President, Sir, I have read and re-read the Amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar, but have failed to find out what purpose or whose purpose his Amendment is going to serve. We have just heard him say that in this Amendment there is no question of principle involved, but that it is a question of expediency and of practical work. I do not see what is the expediency about it. We are at present framing the Constitution; it is a sacred task, and therefore there is no use making provisions for having more than one chamber, if ultimately on account of the powers that we give Second Chamber, we find that it can or will serve no useful purpose because, to that extent, its mere existence without any useful activity would mean so much drain on public revenues. Sir, the whole case as far as I have been able to make out, of the supporters of the Amendment is based on an apprehension, and that apprehension is that these Upper Chambers will really be delaying chambers. Perhaps there might have been some room for this apprehension in days gone by, but considering the constitution of the Upper Chamber that has been laid down in this Draft that we are considering, I see no cause for any apprehension not for the feeling that the Upper Chambers will have nothing more to do than to delay all legislation. As a matter of fact, from the experience that we had in our own Province, I can say without any fear of contradiction that the Upper chamber has served a very useful purpose. I do not think I will be wrong if I stated that almost all the Amendments adopted by the Legislative Council in Bihar were ultimately accepted by the Legislative Assembly in Bihar. That shows that the Upper Chamber has its usefulness and it can become useful if it strives to that end.
