Next I pass on to the amendment which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar today after listening to the debate in the House yesterday and today. I feel that the amendment which has been placed before the House today is a sort of half-hearted concession to the viewpoints that have been put forward in this House. We are dealing with elections and electoral matters. Parliament is the supreme elected body in the Indian Union and so Parliament must have greater voice in the matter of superintendence, direction and control of elections. With a view to serving this purpose, my Friend Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena moved certain amendments yesterday. The amendment that has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar today meets of those amendments, some of those viewpoints half way. I personally think-I may be wrong in the assertion-but I believe that Dr. Ambedkar individually is inclined to go the whole hog. I shall not venture to make a statement on that point, and I have to take the amendment as it has been placed before the House. Clause (4) of the article moved by Dr. Ambedkar yesterday says that the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine. Today the amendment placed before the House says, “subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine.” There are two things, the Parliament’s law and the President’s rule. Why, may I ask, in fairness to this House and the future Parliament of the Indian Union, should we not say that the conditions of service and tenure of office shall be such as Parliament may by law determine? Why also say “as the President may by rule determine“? The President in the executive head of the Union, while Parliament is the supreme elected body. Why then leave it to the President to frame rules in this regard?
