Sir, even after listening to the explanation given by Dr.Ambedkar I am inclined to oppose the provision in this article as far as the excess grants are concerned. I do not see how an occasion can arise for such a grant after the innovations we have made in the preceding article. It seems to me rather anomalous that after laying down a mandatory provision in one article we should provide in the next article for the regularisation of the breach of that mandatory provision. That is want it amounts to here. Perhaps the Mover of this amendment has overlooked the circumstances that have changed. I understand that this provision for excess grant was made on the recommendation of the Expert Committee that was appointed to consider the financial provisions. It has been said so in the footnote. So it is the Expert Committee that has proposed that such a provision should be made. I submit that the entire basis of the recommendation of the Expert Committee has been changed now by the proposals we have already adopted. I will invite attention to paragraph 79 of the report:
“It is usual in democratic constitutions to provide that no money can be drawn from the Treasury except on the authority of the legislature by an Act of Appropriation, but in this country the particle has been to authorise expenditure by resolutions of Government after the payments have been made and not by law. As the existing practice has been working well in this country appropriation by law does not appear to be necessary.”