Sir, with regard to the only objection that has been put forward by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena I would like to say that we have followed the scheme of article 258 already passed by the House, where it is the President that enters into an agreement and not the Parliament. Actually if we bring in Parliament for the purpose of making an agreement with the ruler of a State or the executive of a State, we are diminishing the status of Parliament which has supremacy over the States. Parliament cannot be a party to an agreement with the States: it is a matter of executive arrangement and the arrangement follows the scheme recommended by the V. T. Krishnamanhari Committee Report. That Committee’s Report in its scheme for financial integration has practically done away with the system of land customs levied in various States, Only two exceptions have been made and one Singular exception happens to be Rajasthan where on an examination of the internal financial structure of the Union they have found that the Government of India will have to pay an enormous amount by way of subvention or a large amount of money by way of a grant if the State is to balance its budget. Therefore, they have for a period of five ears to start with–perhaps it may be ten years in the ultimate–allowed them to levy land customs. This is a matter between one executive authority and another and if Mr. Saksena’s amendment is accepted it will be taking away from the supreme position that the Parliament would enjoy in relation not merely to the executive at the Centre but also in relation to the executive of the States as well. This is a transitory provision and follows the scheme that has been recommended by a Committee which has gone thoroughly into the scheme of State finances and has prescribed ways and means by which complete integration can be secured at the earliest possible moment. I do feel that no possible objection can be taken which can be sustained with respect to the article in question.
