Mr. President, Sir, I had an Amendment in the List that could not be moved on account of a technical objection. My submission is that the Article as it is finally proposed is not very clear. The procedure laid down would be so difficult that ordinary legislation might be delayed extraordinarily. I want one or two things to be made clear. So far as sub-clause (b) is concerned, it lays down that more than two months should not elapse before a Bill is passed by the Upper House, from the date on which the Bill was laid before it. Again sub-clause (c) of clause (1) says “the Bill is passed by the Council with Amendments to which the Legislative Assembly does not agree“. This is very ambiguous. When a Bill has been passed by the Council with Amendments, then we send it back to the Legislative Assembly. It shows that, whether the Assembly does or does not agree, that will require a second sitting and second passage by the Assembly. Then again under clause (2)(c) if the Bill is passed by the Council with Amendments to which the Legislative Assembly does not agree, then it shall have to be considered by the Assembly for the third time, because otherwise it cannot be known whether the Assembly does or does not agree to any Amendments proposed by the Legislative Council. So, consideration thrice by the Legislative Assembly and twice by the Legislative Council would delay legislation that might be required to be passed with some speed. The object of the Council is to check hasty legislation but there should be some reasonable limit and the legislation might not be delayed or defeated at all. This would give unnecessary powers to the Council. My honourable Friend Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad does not believe in this democracy and has said…
