Sir, I rise to oppose this amendment. There is some misunderstanding in the minds of some of my friends here. They feel, as my friends Kazi Karimuddin, Mr. Pocker Sahib and others feel, that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are the representatives of the House. Politically speaking, and speaking from the point of view of democracy, they are not liable to represent the House. No Prime Minister represents the House. The House is represented by the Chair here. It is only the Chair through whom the House can express itself. The Prime Minister represents the majority party in the House and therefore the Prime Minister cannot be elected by the whole House. Any person who is elected by the whole House has to represent the whole House. So, if the Prime Minister were to be elected by the whole House, then morally he would have to be responsible to the whole House. The Prime Minister is not responsible to the whole House. He is responsible only for the majority outside that has sent him here. Though he keeps in view the views of the opposite party also, he cannot be elected by the whole House. If he is to be elected by the whole House, then his position as party Leader will be gone altogether, because even those who have cast their votes in the ballot against him will claim him as their representative. Just as in the case of a constituency which elects a Member, the member thus elected is expected to represent even the views of those who voted against him, the Prime Minister also, if the whole House were to elect him, would have to represent even the party in opposition. Such an election is against the principles of a party-systemed democracy. He represents the general will of the masses outside, the vast bulk of the population who have voted his party as the party of their choice. Though he, of course, protects the minorities as a matter of duty yet he continues to represent the majority party only. The case of the President is quite different. He is elected by all the parties, which means by all the elected representatives of the people. He therefore acts as the guardian of all alike. As the head of the State, it is only through him that the general will of the people is expressed. The ministers should be made to invoke the general will. The President contains the biggest representation in him. Such a President shall therefore have the right of appointing the Ministers. We have already clarified the issue by providing in the Constitution, further on, as Instrument of Instructions to the President that when he appoints the Ministers he will see to it that they shall enjoy the confidence of the House. But the appointment should be made by the President because he is the only one person in whom the whole nation has invested its sovereignty and therefore the amendment of Mr. Pocker Sahib goes against the whole set up of democracy.
