Mr. President, I was surprised to hear the speech of Dr. Ambedkar when he confessed that there was an anomaly in his having to move this amendment. We have provided for second Chambers in the States and yet we are leaving the composition of those Chambers to be divided by the Parliament. I first of all object to the very principle that Parliament should make any part of the Constitution. In fact when we are making the Constitution, we must complete every portion of it. We have laid down that only by two-thirds majority can it be changed. If the Parliament makes some law it will be changeable always by the majority and there will be no finality to it. I therefore think that leaving anything about the Constitution to Parliament is a very wrong procedure. Then there is no reason why we cannot come to some agreement on this question of the Upper Chamber. Once we leave accepted this retrograde step. Let us provide in the Constitution provisions for making these chambers really revising chambers where they can review the working of the lower chambers and where they may be able to point out what mistakes the Lower House has made: I think that the original article 150 should be amended in part (2) only. I agree with my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath, that the number of members in the Upper House must not exceed 25 per cent. of the strength of the lower House. To have 40 members in an Upper House where the number of members in the Lower House is only 60 or 80, is, I think, a very wrong principle. Clause (1) of article 150 says
“The total number of members in the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council shall not exceed twenty-five per cent. of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly of that State.”