Constituent Assembly of India Debates

eyond the 16th May Statement may....
Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: May I rise to a point of order ? I thought you
decided, Sir, that the present discussion should be confined to the adjournment
motion.
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari: I am only drawing the attention of the House
to a very small point, The application to the States in general of the Federal List of
subjects in so far as it goes beyond tile 16th May Statement should be with their
consent. It follows from this that In their case, the residuary powers would vest with
them unless they consent to their vesting them with the Centre. In the Federal
Legislative List before us, List I in the Appendix, there are included a number of items
which do not strictly follow from the three subjects in respect of which the States
intend accede. The more Logical course then. Sir, would be to split up the Federal
Legislative List into two lists.
Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Are we going into the merits Sir?
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari: I am only stating the points, which will
justify postponing consideration of the Report.
Mr. A. P. Pattani (Western India States) : Sir, the constitution cannot be drawn
up unless these powers are first decided upon. The motion asks that these powers
may be considered after the constitution has been drawn tip. I submit the constitution
cannot be drawn up unless these powers are decided upon.
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari: Since the Federal Legislative List is likely to
undergo a drastic revision and overhauling Into two sections, one applicable to the
Union and the other applicable to the Provinces only, it would be only proper for this
House to agree to a postponement of the consideration of this Report.
I venture to suggest, also Sir, that in order that the Report may be considered
afresh in the context of the vital changes that have taken place during the last four
weeks, a wider committee may be' appointed by you, by the President, with a larger
proportion of States, Representatives with a view to re-examine the Report and to
submit a further report within as brief a time as possible.
We have at present one further difficulty In considering this Report. There is the
original report of April 1947, and there is also the second report of July 1947. Some
portions of the April Report will hold good and some other portions will not. Members
will find it very difficult to pick out the exact sentences which hold good in either
report. A comparison of the items given in the April and July Reports and those 1n the
Federal Legislative List given in the Government of India Act, 1935, cod me six hours.
I think, Sir, that the House will be handicapped very greatly in considering the Report
at this stage.
With these few words I hope that the House-will Instead of attempting to rush
through this important piece Of work, agree to give move thought and more time so
that the work we do may be of lasting benefit to the Provinces and the States.
Shri Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya (Gwalior State) : *[Mr. President under the