Although the Ministry would, under the proposed system, be responsible for the administration of the government, the Assembly would hold a powerful check on it s actions. In the event of the Assembly considering the Chief Minister and his Government to be following a policy contrary to the one decided upon by the Assembly, or having committed a fundamental breach of the principles of that policy, or being generally inefficient or corrupt or otherwise undesirable, a vote of non-confidenc[unclear] against the Chief Minister or his administration would be proposed in the Assembly. As soon as notice is given of such a motion, and a statement of the reasons for the non-confidence vote submitted to him, the Rajpramukh or Governor would ask the Council of Elders to make an inquiry into the non-confidence motion. The report subsequently submitted by the Council would be placed before the Assembly together with an explanatory statement from the Chief Minister. If, after consideration of the Council’s report and the Chief Minister’s explanation, the vote of non-confidence is pressed by the Assembly and passed, the Ruler or Governor would be required to replace his Chief Minister, appointing his successor, who need not be a member of the Assembly. The Governor or Ruler would, in turn, appoint his Ministery, in consultatio[unclear] with the new Chief Minister; any of these men except those against whom the vote of non-confidence is passed may be reappointed from the old Ministery. The Assembly would have the right to continue to pass a vote of nonconfidence against any Ministry which is unsatisfactory in its estimation.
