Now, let us come to the question of prorogation. There I have got a slight difference of opinion with the hon. Member, Shri Kaul. It is an academic argument, though he has made a very effective argument and prima facie it appears to be a very valid argument. He made some distinction between this right of prorogation and the right of dissolution. He said that prorogation is a procedural device while dissolution is a political weapon. This type of classification is not always valid in legal matters. Dissolution also can be procedural device. When the House is dissolved at the end of five years, it is not a political weapon. It is a procedural matter. (Interruptions). It, therefore, does not become a political matter. Whether it becomes a procedural matter or a political matter depends on the objective for which it is used. It is in that sense we are not making a distinction. Now, in the case of prorogations also, prorogation as it is understood in Britain and in India is quite different. At least the effect of prorogation in England and the effect of prorogation in India is different. I have also got Basu’s book. I can read something from that but I do not want to take the time of the House. It is obvious that as a result of certain provisions in the Constitution itself, prorogation does not take away many matters. A bill which is introduced or moved does not lapse. In England, after the prorogation everything lapses. Then, may I ask him one thing.
He himself gave that information which was very useful information, that is prorogation is not accepted that way in India as it takes away the right to issue Ordinances. When prorogation is resorted to do with a view to having the right to issue an Ordinance, is it not a political weapon? The right to issue an Ordinance is a political right. Therefore, to say that prorogation is exclusively procedural and dissolution is exclusively political is not very valid. Sometimes prorogation is procedural. Dissolution in some cases is procedural and in some cases political. Therefore, to make a distinction in this way and, therefore, it is wrong, monstrous, brutal and all that is a very eloquent argument, but that is not necessarily a valid argument.
Shri M. N. Kaul : I did not use any one of those words.
Shri Y. B. Chavan : You did not say these, but others used that argument.
Shri M. N. Kaul : I merely said that it was a new use and, therefore, it has been misunderstood.
Shri Y. B. Chavan : You have been very parliamentary in your expressions and in your arguments. I do not deny it, because I heard your argument with great care and, I must say, with admiration and respect. With the experience you have in parliamentary affairs, certainly your argument has to be heard with great care. Therefore, not wanting to be caught napping, I immediately consulted some books. Ultimately it comes to this. It is no use merely trying to attribute political motives because certain thing was done or not done.