This particular motion of my friend Shrimati Durgabai supposes that some quicker progress is possible by this method; I personally feel that it will not serve this purpose. First of all, we have got Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad who has tabled many amendments of a formal nature; he himself is not moving most of them. Similarly, with regard to the second part of clause (3), which says that amendments which are over-lapping or of a similar import, shall not be moved, I feel that this is something very serious. There may be a number of amendments on a particular subject, and the House may be willing to accept one amendment and not the other selected by the Chair. Although it has been stated that they will be deemed to have been moved. I personally feel that it will not be proper to deem them to have been moved unless they are commended to the House by a speech by the mover. I feel that it would be undemocratic to deem amendments to have been moved without their being moved in the House. Though we are not really saving very great time of the House, we would be giving rise to a justified complaint on behalf of many Members that by this we are trying to gag them. I do not think they will be gagged because you will always allow those amendments which have substance in them to be moved. But, still, it could be complained by those who are opposed to the Congress that they are being hustled and gagged. Therefore, it is my earnest wish to commend to my friend Shrimati Durgabai to reconsider this motion and to see whether it is proper to press it, and whether the real purpose would be served by this motion. I feel very intensely that the Constitution is a permanent thing and as such there should not be any complaint that we are not properly considering it. I hope this motion will be reconsidered and that my remarks will be borne in mind my friends.
