Now I come to the amendment of Mr. Pataskar. So far as I have been able to understand him, there is really no difference between the draft article and the amendment suggested by him, in principle. Both article 311 as I have moved and the amendment as moved by Mr. Pataskar agree that we ought to make a provision for the abolition of dual membership. The only question that remains is how it is to be done. According to the provisions contained in this article, what is stated is that the vacancy shall occur only from the commencement of the Constitution. He will continue sitting and functioning as a Member until that date, that is to say, 25th January 1950, assuming that the Constitution comes into existence on the 26th January. But elections to fill the seats which have so become vacant may be held at any time before the commencement of this Constitution so that when the Constituent Assembly meets as the provisional Parliament there may not be any sudden depletion in its membership. What my Friend Mr. Pataskar wants is, that the vacancy should come into effect from the commencement of the Constitution, and that the unseating should take place from one month thereafter. That is the only difference. It seems to me that it is really a matter of detail as to which date we should adopt for vacancy and which date we should adopt for unseating. There as on why we have adopted the 6th October 1949 as the date with reference to which the right of a Member to continue as such Member is to be determined is because it is the date on which we commenced this session of the Constituent Assembly. I do not wish todogmatise that there is any particular virtue in the 6th October 1949, nor will Mr. Pataskar say that there is any virtue in the provision that he has moved by his amendment. As I said, there is no difference in principle, and we are all agreed that double membership should be avoided, and I, therefore, think that the amendment that I have moved…
