From what was mentioned by the Honourable Shri K. Santhanam in connection with the discussion of article 61, I gather that this will be the possible objection, namely that this is a convention that obtains elsewhere and therefore it will be difficult to put it down on paper and it is also unnecessary. To this anticipated objection I submit that we should not continue to be slavish hereafter too, when we have obtained our freedom. No doubt until now we have been slavishly following the convention or procedure adopted in Great Britain and in other parts of the British Commonwealth. But, having obtained freedom to do what we feel to be for the best for our country, why should we not put down our ideas in the Constitution itself? I see no reason why we should again be hanging on even here after to precedents and conventions obtaining elsewhere and not put down what we desire to be the law in our Constitution? The conventions referred to in other countries are there because of the fact that they have unwritten Constitutions. At least so far as these aspects are concerned, why should we leave them in an unspecified manner to be fought out in the Supreme Court? There is no necessity for that when we have an opportunity to put these down in the Constitution now. Why cannot we state this clearly? Where is the harm or danger in doing so, I cannot understand.
