Sir, I agree with my friend, Mr. Hanumanthaiya that the clause as it stands here in the amendment will not be in its proper place in the Constitution. Yet I cannot help saying that I agree to a very great extent with the reasoning advanced by my learned friend, Prof. K. T. Shah. We have experimented with parliamentary democracy for so many years. Now I personally feel that, though Dr. Ambedkar in his original address very clearly told us that we have to choose between the British system and the American system, and said that the American system gives more security and the British system more responsibility, yet we had decided here to choose more responsibility; if it were left to his choice he would have preferred the American system. I agree to a very great extent about the evils of the present Parliamentary system. We have seen Parliamentary parties in so many provinces like in Sind, in Bengal and in other places, where Ministers try to keep their parties by giving bribes to the people who have even four or five votes so that the majority party may remain in being. I feel that this system where in people have merely to keep the majority in power is being put to abuse. I know that in England they are working the system in a perfect manner. But they have a tradition of 700 years. They have developed their methods whereas we are just entering upon our democratic freedom and we cannot imitate it to perfection. It will have to wait until the whole national character changes and it is not possible that we can imitate England. Probably our slavery has led us to imitate the British system. If left to ourselves we would have copied the American system. In that system there is complete separation of the judicature from the legislature and the legislature from the executive. The legislature there can pass any laws which it thinks best for the country and the President has to obey them. Here the Leader of the majority party must have the House with him. The House will only pass those laws which the party thinks are necessary. The legislature cannot be independent of, but it has to be submissive to, the executive. In most places where the leaders are outstanding, the parties will say “ditto” to what they say and the real will of the majority will not be voiced. Therefore I think this becomes more like a one-man Government than anything else. In America, people are free; they can pass laws even against the President. There have been cases where in spite of the laws passed by the legislature–the Congress–it has been set aside by the Supreme Court and the President has to see that any action of his is not against the fundamental laws of justice. The Supreme Court is far more powerful than anyone else. I, however, think that now we have gone too far to change the basis of our Constitution, because in the last two years we have passed everything in accordance with the British Constitution, and probably it is too late now in the day to change the whole system. But I do think that there is great force in what Prof. Shah has said and though this amendment is not in its proper place, still I do think that this House will remember that although we are all for a system which has been tried in England and is being worked out there in a satisfactory manner, still in our country we will have to be careful to develop traits which make that constitutional working possible. In England, they could throw out even Churchill in the new elections although he was the man who saved England and her freedom. Have we that sort of characteristic in our country where we can throw out anyone if we think he is not good enough? What is necessary for our country we must do, even though it may be against the will of the biggest person. Until then, we cannot work Parliamentary democracy. I therefore think that this amendment has given this House an opportunity to express its doubt as to whether we have done wisely in accepting the present system. But I think it is now too late in the day to change the whole system and also that this amendment has no place at this time. It should have really come as a change of the whole system. But still, I think that where the Supreme Court is concerned, I wish it were appointed by the majority in the legislature and not by one single person. Everywhere, its independence must be guaranteed and I have given amendments that the Supreme Court must be completely independent of the judicature and the legislature. It must be the one body which should decide what is guaranteed with respect to our liberty, etc. I hope this amendment will at least help us to see that the Supreme Court’s independence is not in any way minimized. In regard to this I heard one of the most eminent authorities in the Assembly say “Today the High Courts are not independent; they are influenced by the political consequences of their actions”.
