So, looking at the constitution of the Upper Chamber as it is in the Draft – subject to any Amendments that the House may like to make – we find that there is no cause for any apprehension from a body constituted in the manner I have just explained. But apart from any other thing, I certainly like the declaration, for instance, from Prof. Ranga who says he does not believe in a Second Chamber. That is perfectly clear but I cannot understand our agreeing to a Second Chamber but giving it practically no powers whatsoever. According to the Amendment, in three months’ time or two months’ time, a Bill is either to be passed or not passed by the Second chamber. What is the use of having a Second chamber like this? The constitution of the Legislative Assembly, in number, shall be very much bigger than that of the legislative Council; so even with a joint sitting there is no apprehension of the Lower House’s views not prevailing; but actually, it gives an opportunity to people with experience of administration and other things to give to the Legislative Assembly their advice and explain to the House their viewpoint of the matter. Administration in ademocracy is administration by persuasion and reasoning. That is all that the original draft laid down when it said that there shall be a joint sitting. I, therefore, feel that the wording in the Draft Constitution which has been placed before us is definitely better than the Amendment which has been proposed and I would, therefore, suggest to the House that the Amendment should be rejected.
