My only point is to emphasise the amendment tabled by Prof. K. T. Shah which points out a direction which is very important from the point of view of a discussion on the floor of this House. There is a lack in the constitution. He has rightly pointed out–I do not know whether this is the proper place to mention this idea–that we must define as to who is the representative of the people so far as sovereignty is concerned. He says: “the Head of the State in India represents the sovereignty of the people.” We have not yet decided the question of the residence of sovereignty. I had moved an amendment on this point and it was promised that it would be taken up for consideration when we discuss the Preamble to the Constitution. I am waiting for that opportunity. Sir. But, I feel that the Head of the State must also represent the sovereignty of the people. After all, how otherwise will the people express themselves? No Government in democratic countries can ever claim to be fully representative of the people as a whole. The Government here, although they represent the ambitions and aspirations of the people, and even though they are the most popular people in the country, it cannot be said that they are the representatives of the total population of India; they are not the representatives of the whole people because they have a party bias and a party manifesto on which they have been elected. The Government must as a rule represent the majority party in the country. A Government cannot therefore be the true spokesman of the whole people. There must be some unit, some authority, some person in whom paramount or sovereignty should be vested, in whom the prerogatives of the people should be vested. I therefore submit, Sir, that it would have been a good idea if we had laid down that the President was not only the Executive Head of the State but also a symbol of the sovereignty of the people.
