Then, my third amendment relates to the words ‘affection or ill-will‘ occurring at the end of the form. It says that a Minister of the Union is required to do his duty in accordance with the Constitution and law “without fear or favour“. That is quite good. The words “without fear or favour” are very appropriate as a Minister must discharge his duties to the people without fear or favour. But is he to discharge his duty without affection to people? Should he be not imbued with a sense of love and affection to people ? Yet the affirmation says that a Minister must act “without affection or ill-will” to the people. ‘Without affection’ is absolutely mischievous. He must have some some amount of love and affection for the people but we find that Ministers today are getting away from the people. The love for the people which should characterise them is forsaking them. They are following a path of disaffection for the people. We find in the Provinces, and in the Centre there is disaffection towards the people. If the Ministers take the oath that ‘I will deal with you without affection‘ the people will reciprocate also ‘we will also deal with you without any affection. So there will be mutual disaffection and ill-will. I submit that my first amendment with regard to the requirement of “sincerity” and with the requirement of affection should be accepted. But if the differential phraseology was not deliberately selected to give effect to obvious implications, I think in the first place the words ‘and sincerely‘ should be inserted and in the second place, the words ‘without affection‘ should be deleted.
