Mr. President, Sir, I oppose the Resolution that has been moved because I feel that it is not right for us, at this stage, to appoint any Committee, whether of experts or otherwise, which can pry into things which we have not yet decided. I can fully understand that decisions that have been made may be put into the melting pot by them and turned out in constitutional language, but it has been insinuated by some, speakers that this Committee would also look into matters where the House has not taken its decision. A great may important subjects are yet left over. They have not been decided by this Assembly and I don’t see how we can delegate our constitution making power to any Committee at all. I do not think there can be any difference of opinion on that. I do admit that, as far as the question of clauses and other things that have already been decided by us, is concerned, a Committee may reproduce them in suitable constitutional language. Here, a point has been raised that some sort of finality should be reached. True we are making a constitution and that very word itself means that we are not to change it every five minutes, but at the same time, before finality is reached, I think we should have ample opportunity of reviewing the situation. It may be that we shall have to unmake our decisions. The, House is a sovereign body and It has the right to make decisions and unmake them. It seems to me that, by appointing a Committee at this stage, we are putting the cart before the horse. More and more have we realised that it does not pay us to rush things. We have appointed Committees of experts; they have produced their reports; and what has happened is that those reports when they have appeared before this Assembly have been thrashed out and there have been very many important changes in the recommendations of the experts. This may be the ease with the Drafting Committee also when it submits its report. I think, in that case, we shall just be wasting time. I think the better thing would be that we should complete whatever remains to be done and, then, the Drafting Committee will be in a position, having been in full possession of all decisions taken by this Assembly to produce a Bill which can come before us to make up our mind whether we want to change the language or the subject matter contained in that Bill. Sir, I particularly feel that should not be left to this Committee even to draft in constitutional language clauses in regard to tribal matters, for instance. Now, the Tribal Committee, one of the Sub-Committees appointed by the Advisory Committee which again has been appointed by this Assembly, has vet to complete its work. We have, I know, submitted an interim report. Does it mean that this Committee of experts, expert draftsmen, are going to submit in the Bill matters which have not yet come before the Assembly? I think, that would be a preposterous thing for us to do. The House must have the right to make its decisions and I suggest that we can never delegate our constitutional power to any Committee, however great the experts might be. We have seen there we are grateful for the work they have produced, but our experience has been that even experts have to be shifted when the matter they produce comes before the floor of the House before the floor of the House.
