I, for one, do not share that view, but I fear we lay ourselves open to malicious criticism outside the House, and therefore, I felt that this provision regarding the non-payment of rent was undignified and detracts from the dignity of the Constitution. If the House will refer to article 48 of this Constitution which has been adopted already as well as article 135 of the Constitution also adopted by the House, they will see that neither the President of the Republic nor the Governor of a State has been given a residence free of rent; I mean it is not specifically stated in the Constitution. The relevant articles relating to the Governors and the President state that the President or the Governor shall have an official residence. That is an that those articles state and there is no reference to the payment or non-payment of rent. I ask the House, is it not undignified of us to say that such a dignitary will not be liable to pay rent for his house? We have already accepted the salutary provision that no dignitary, however high-placed he may be, shall be exempt from the payment of income-tax, as the Governor-General has been heretofore. When even the poorest labourer pays a rent of a rupee or more for his little tenement, why. should not a judge pay a rent for his house? I am sure no judge will ask for this generous concession to him. I really fail to See why this provision as regards rent, so derogatory to the dignity of the House and of the Constitution, has been sought to be moved by Dr. Ambedkar in this House.
