I would like to add one words in regard to the remarks made by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. He has attempted to be logical. I felt, as he was speaking, that he was trying to direct a heavy machine-gun against a small mosquito. This provision of two nominated seats in the House of the People, if the President thinks it necessary to so nominate and a few seats in the Lower House of a State if the Governor so thinks fit, is merely a permissive provision. It is not an obligatory or mandatory provision. If the Anglo-Indian community is not given these seats by nomination they could not go to a court of law on the ground that the Constitution has provided for nominations, and that has been ignored by the Authorities. Full discretion to nominate or not is given to the President or to the Governor of the State concerned. Why therefore, bring in all these arguments and all this logic against a purely permissive provision?
