Sir, there is not much controversy about the motion that I have moved. About the third clause I had already suggested that I would not move it as I anticipated that there was going to be a suitable amendment in a subsequent clause. We found that if we retained sub-clause (3) difficulty would arise as to who is to judge the ‘incapacity or failure to discharge his functions’. In order to avoid all these complications, an amendment has been tabled to the subsequent clause, which avoids all difficulties. Now I accept Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant’s amendment. About the fourth sub-clause a suggestion has been made that the re-election should not be restricted for any term. In all if he is allowed to stand for election twice, he gets a period of eight years. For the third re-election the sub-clause proposals to restrict candidature because according to the discussion that took place in the Committee it was suggested that the President, if he remains for two terms, may well establish his power to such an extent that perhaps somebody might suggest or some suggestions may be made that he has stabilized his position and it may be difficult to absolve him from the charge of having manoeuvred, from his position, support for the third election. It was considered better to avoid any such insinuation against the Governor as well, as it was also considered that the eight years’ period is a, sufficiently long time. As the candidate for the Governorship will fairly be a man of substance, age, and experience, after the eight years, period he may better retire and give a change to a younger man. I think the Committee has come to the conclusion after mature consideration. I think it is a better suggestion. Therefore, the motion that I have moved as modified by the amendment of Panditji should be adopted, and the amended clause as it stands should be accepted by the House.
