Mr. President, the amendment moved by my Honourable friend Mr. Kher deserves very careful consideration and in that connection the observations that have been made by Mr. Santhanam should also be closely scrutinized. I am sure that most of the members of this: House have not yet got any clear picture as to what is going to be done in the next session. Mr.Santhanam says that a portion of the Union Powers Committee’s Report has not yet been dealt with by the House. Nobody knows whether the House is in a position to accept it in toto or to modify it. He seemed to suggest that there will be drafting of the decisions that have already been taken by the House and that it Would be open to the Members to make certain small verbal alterations only if necessary. I want to tell this House that this is not an ordinary piece of legislation or an ad hoc piece of legislation which a, legislature is called upon to enact. You are going to enact a Constitution Act for Free India and, therefore, it is incumbent, may, it is imperative on everyone of you to scrutinise closely every single provision in the Constitution Act and to satisfy yourself that it meets with the requirements of the nation. If you simply restrain the powers of the members of this House and restrict them to mere verbal alterations. I think you will be doing the greatest possible injustice to this house and also to the country. It may be that when a full picture is presented to the House they may be constrained to make certain drastic modifications of certain portions of clauses of the Constitution Bill in the light of the decisions that we may be able to take mean-time. How can you say beforehand that, the draft that will come up before you would be only amenable to certain formal or verbal alterations? Does Mr. Santhanam seriously suggest that because we have accepted certain principles in this House in connection with the reports, of the Union Powers Committee and the other Committees, therefore, that will operate as a res judicata, that they cannot be reopened, that it is, not open to any member to go back on them or to modify them to suit the necessity of the law itself or the constitutions itself so that it might fit in with the rest of the provisions? If that is the view held by him, I will join a straight issue with him. I cannot too strongly emphasise the point their it is the Constitution Act of this country which you are going to frame.
