These amendments raise three points. The first point relates to the term of a minister, the second relates to the qualifications of a minister and the third relates to condition for membership of a cabinet. I shall take the first point for consideration, viz., the term of a minister. On this point there are two amendments, one by Mr. Pocker and the other by Mr. Karimuddin. Mr. Pocker’s amendment is that the minister shall continue in office so long as he continues to enjoy the confidence of the House, irrespective of other considerations. He may be a corrupt minister, he may be a bad minister, he may be quite incompetent, but if he happened to enjoy the confidence of the House then nobody shall be entitled to remove him from office. According to Mr. Karimuddin, the position that he has taken, if I have understood him correctly, is just the opposite. His position seems to be that the Minister shall be liable to removal only on impeachment for certain specified offences such as bribery, corruption, treason and so on, irrespective of the question whether he enjoys the confidence of the House or not. Even if a minister lost the confidence of the House, so long as there was no impeachment of that minister on the grounds that he has specified, it shall not be open either to the Prime Minister or the President to remove him from office. As the Honourable House will see both these amendments are in a certain sense inconsistent, if not contradictory. My submission is that the provision contained in sub-clause (2) of article 62 is a much better provision and covers both the points. Article 62, (2) states that the ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. That means that a minister will be liable to removal on two grounds. One ground on which he would be liable to dismissal under the provisions contained in clause (2) of article 62 would be that he has lost the confidence of the House, and secondly, that his administration is not pure, because the word used here is “pleasure”. It would be perfectly open under that particular clause of article 62 for the President to call for the removal of a particular minister on the ground that he is guilty of corruption or bribery or maladministration, although that particular minister probably is a person who enjoyed the confidence of the House. I think honourable Members will realise that the tenure of a minister must be subject not merely to one condition but to two conditions and the two conditions are purity of administration and confidence of the House. The article makes provision for both and therefore the amendments moved by my honourable Friends, Messrs. Pocker and Karimuddin are quite unnecessary.
