I would like to explain why this has been necessary. The Amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar to Article 172 is a variation of the Amendment in List I, No. 10. If honourable Members will scrutinise No. 10 they will find that in sub-clause (b) of clause (1) and sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the period that is allowed to lapse after the Bill had returned to the Legislative Assembly is mentioned as three months and one month respectively, but it is to commence from the date of reception of the Bill in the Upper House, and clause (3) of Article 172 in Amendment No. 10 prescribes how these three months are to be calculated and it also says that if there is any prorogation of the Upper House, the period of prorogation will not be counted to make up these three months. In actual fact, this particular Amendment, as Dr. Ambedkar mentioned, closely follows the wording of the Parliament Act of 1911. But there is this difference between what happens in the British Parliament and what is likely to be in our case that while it is proper to stipulate that the total time taken including the time of prorogation shall be a particular period in case of the British Parliament we cannot do the same thing in regard to the Upper House, for this reason that while the British Parliament sits practically day to day for the bulk of the year, the Upper Houses in our provincial legislatures will sit only for a few days at a time and the aggregate period of their sessions may not even come to two months in the whole year. So it was represented to us by a very prominent Premier of one of the major provinces that this would, in effect, mean that the delay would be inordinate. It may extend to over a year or more, because at no time will the Upper House sit for a period of three months continuously even in one year. The Amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar was a result of these representations and clause (3) in No. 10 has been left out. But at the same time another variation has been made that the time to be calculated is to be from the date of the laying of the Bill before the Upper House, so that the reception date does not come into operation; and it was then felt that two months would be adequate. But on further reflection, since we have cut out clause (3), that is, that we shall not be taking into account the period of the prorogation of the House in the total time that might elapse, we felt that two months was inadequate and three months would be more reasonable. After all, the over-all time that is to be taken for a Bill to be returned to the Lower House will be three months from the date on which it is laid before the Upper House which in my view and in the view of my colleagues in the Drafting Committee is reasonable. That is why I have moved this Amendment. It merely extends the period by one month and does not materially alter the scope of the Amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. I commend the Amendment to the House.
(Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 of List I (Second Week) were not moved.)