Skip to content
Indian Liberals
Filter:

Tip: search runs across all languages; results are tokenised per-page using the document's lang attribute. Search inside the documents →

minutes

Extract from the Minutes of the Central Parliamentary Board Meeting Held in Bhubaneshwar on October 3, 1968

Mr. Mohammed Imam's Amendment to Mr. Nath Pal's Bill on Fundamental Rights

Bhubaneshwar · 1968

1 pages

Summary

This one-page extract records a decision of the Central Parliamentary Board at its meeting in Bhubaneshwar on October 3, 1968, concerning Mr. Mohammed Imam’s proposed amendment to Mr. Nath Pal’s Bill on Fundamental Rights. The Board considered a communication from Mr. Masani, who warned that amendments already tabled by him and the Maharaja of Dhrangadhra might make it embarrassing for the Board if Mr. Imam moved a different amendment, given the constitutional provision that amendments concerning fundamental rights could be made only through a referendum.

The Board decided that both amendments could be moved, but that Mr. Imam should press his amendment only if Mr. Masani’s amendment was rejected. It regarded this arrangement as consistent with ordinary parliamentary practice and therefore declined to alter its earlier decision permitting Mr. Imam to move his amendment. No author, publisher, or further procedural context is provided on the page.

Key points

  • The document is an extract from the Central Parliamentary Board’s minutes for a meeting held in Bhubaneshwar on October 3, 1968.
  • The matter concerned Mr. Mohammed Imam’s amendment to Mr. Nath Pal’s Bill on Fundamental Rights.
  • Mr. Masani referred to amendments already tabled by himself and the Maharaja of Dhrangadhra concerning constitutional amendment through a referendum.
  • The Board permitted both amendments to be moved, but asked Mr. Imam to press his amendment only if Mr. Masani’s amendment was rejected.
  • The Board considered the arrangement ordinary parliamentary practice and made no change to its earlier decision.
  • The page records a procedural decision rather than the substance or merits of the proposed constitutional amendments.

Metadata and summary are AI-extracted from the source PDF and reviewed for editorial accuracy. The original work is available via the Read PDF tab above (where present); paragraph-level citation inside the PDF is deferred to a future engagement.

Related across the archive