I submit, Sir, that these words imply a serious encroachment on the Constitution. The earlier part of the clause affects also “other functions” under the Constitution. These words are all-embracing. In fact, the “other functions” under the Constitution mean all sorts of functions. The choice of Ministers should be matter which should not be open to question at all. But the validity of any other functions, I submit, should not be immune from question. In fact, under the Constitution, the President would be a constitutional President. He would be acting on the advice of Ministers. So in the exercise of his other functions under the Constitution, he would be acting on the advice of his Ministers. The effect of the words which I seek to delete would be that it would give the President absolute and autocratic power in the exercise of his “other functions” under the Constitution. That is too much to concede. The real effect of the President being a constitutional President would be that the Ministry or a Minister may advise the President to do anything which is not constitutional, and the effect of the words which I seek to delete would be that a clearly unconstitutional act, or which may amount even to a deliberate, open violation of the Constitution would not be open to question. The new clause says that such an act of the President “shall not be called in question”. The prohibition is absolute. It cannot be called into question in any place, in any manner. It would not be open to question in a Court of law, in the legislature or anywhere else. I do not know whether any criticism in a newspaper questioning the legality or even the propriety of an act of the President would be prohibited under this clause. But the plain meaning of these words would be at any rate to shut out any discussion of it in the Legislature or in a Court of law where an unconstitutional act should be effectively challenged. I submit, Sir, that these words are too wide to be accepted. I do not suggest or believe that they were introduced to cover and protect a deliberately perpetrated unconstitutional act. I do not believe it. But the effect of these words would nevertheless be this. They would cover or protect from question in any way any act done by a Minister or by a Ministry through the President and a Minister will thereby secure a kind of protection which he should not enjoy. A Minister will be enabled to use the President as an effective shield to support an unconstitutional act. The sanctity of the Constitution would thus be seriously impaired, its authority seriously undermined, if a perfectly unconstitutional act is shut out from any kind of discussion or question, under the latter part of this clause. I submit, Sir, this is a very serious encroachment on the rights of the citizens so eloquently guaranteed with so much flourish in the Constitution. These rights would be absolutely nullified if a President can be coaxed, persuaded, on the advice of a Minister to act in an unconstitutional manner. I submit that this is an effect which is undesirable and, perhaps, not intended. I, therefore, seek the elimination of even any possibility of any question as to the unconstitutionality of an act of the President being in any way shut out. At any rate I seek clarification. I think that the rights of the citizens should be protected from this sort of encroachment under the last few lines.
