Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I must admit that I am not very happy regarding this particular Bill. The hon. Minister has told the House that whenever the President took the authority under Article 356 of the Constitution and whenever there was the President's Proclamation, every time such a Bill was brought forward before Parliament and Parliament approved that Bill. It is true, but at the same time, it is also true that this kind of routine which is now being followed from time to time is creating a situation in which Parliament, which is given a very important function under Article 356 of the Constitution, is divesting itself of that function. In order to fully appreciate, Sir, the significance of such a move, it is necessary to go into the history of this sort of powers that were conferred on Parliament by the Constitution in the past. Sir, under the Government of India Act, 1935, under Section 93, some such situation was contemplated and certain provisions were made in case such a situation arose either at the Centre or in some of the Provinces, as they were called at that time. At that time, it was decided that the Governor-General should have both the executive as well as the legislative power in his hands in case such a situation arose either at the Centre or in the Provinces. Now, the framers of the Constitution have not accepted that particular formula when our Constitution was framed and have definitely made a distinction between the executive power and the legislative power and they have stated that as far as executive power is concerned, the President can straightway take these powers into his hands through a Proclamation but as far as legislative powers are concerned, these powers vest in Parliament. The Constitution provides that Parliament in its turn might delegate these powers to the President or to some authority to be named by him, but obviously, when the distinction between the executive and the legislative power was made in the Constitution, it is reasonable to suppose that only under exceptional circumstances the Parliament was to delegate that power to the President again or to any authority to be named by him. If it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the legislative as well as the executive power should vest in the President himself, then the scheme which was envisaged in Section 93 of the Government of India Act would have been copied in the Constitution. The very fact that it has not been done clearly shows that the framers of the Constitution expect Parliament to exercise the legislative power and only in exceptional circumstances, should this power be delegated to the President or to any authority to be named by him. This was, to my mind, the real intention and the real scheme as it is envisaged in the Constitution, but what do we find? Whenever there is a Proclamation, automatically, this Bill is brought and passed by Parliament and the powers are vested in the President. What is the necessity of the ritual to be gone through at the time of every Proclamation whereby the Parliament might divest itself of its power the moment it has got it? There seems to be no sense in this type of ritual to be gone through after every Proclamation. It has been stated that this becomes necessary because of the fact that Parliament might not have sufficient time to consider the various Bills and therefore it is desirable that this power should be vested in the President. Again I ask the same question. We are not the framers of the Constitution aware of the fact that there was the function which Parliament had to perform regarding the Central Government and that Parliament might not find time to look into the legislative matters of the territories, the executive power and the legislative power for which have been taken away by the Centre? Here again, the very fact that the Constitution is passed is proof that Parliament is supposed to function as originally envisaged and it clearly shows that the Constitution expects this Parliament to find time to discharge its functions. I am not at all satisfied that there would not be sufficient time for this Parliament to go into the various problems that are connected with the exercise of the legislative powers which were originally in the Legislature and which were, because of the Proclamation, vested in Parliament. We have been told that there are certain Bills which are to be gone through and that this House adjourned earlier and the two Houses might not be in session simultaneously, and therefore, these difficulties might arise. May I ask the hon. Minister does not the same argument also apply to the legislative business as far as the Centre is concerned? The Centre has to go through a large number of legislative measures. There are all sorts of Bills coming up.  Submit