Vol. 14, Part I · pages 306–310

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES288 My object is continuance of the debate, consideration of the motion, and I want the consideration to be taken along with my motion. A further reading of the ruling relied upon by Dr. Ambedkar will make it absolutely clear: “During the discussion on the Cotton excise Duty Abolition Resolution a motion was moved to adjourn the debate on the Resolution. “The President while accepting the motion on this particular occasion without creating a precedent, remarked : The Chair cannot allow a motion to adjourn consideration of a proposition to be moved merely in order to enable another item of business to come forward. It must be supported on substantive grounds.” As I understand it, there was at the time one motion before the House and there was another perhaps more interesting or more important in advance. A Member proposed the adjournment of the discussion of a resolution which was under consideration so that another more interesting Motion may be taken up. It was the attempt to adjourn the first Motion that was said to be unacceptable. Here I do not propose adjournment of the debate. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It all comes to that. Mr. Naziriruddin Ahmad: Here we are concerned with the interpretation of Rule 52. The plain reading of this rule would show that the motion is in order. Without abrogating the rule it cannot be held that it is out of order. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (U. P. : General): This Bill admittedly has created a great deal of feeling and it would be most undesirable to add to it by restraining the discussion in any way. I think the only way of making every section of the House feel that full opportunity was being given to it to express its opinion on this and to allow the discussion. Whatever our individual views regarding the merits of the Bill before us may be, that should be no ground for opposing the Motion of my honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Dr. Ambedkar quoted a ruling of the Chair in regard to a matter that is not on all fours with that under consideration now. In the first place the ruling was given in regard to a Resolution and not in regard to a Bill. In the second place, the rules lay down clearly that so far as a Bill is concerned a Motion may be made not merely that the Bill be circulated but that it may be recirculated, not merely that it should be referred to a Select Committee but that it should be recommitted to it. The language is therefore absolutely clear. If, whenever a Motion is made for the re-committal or re-circulation of a Bill, it is opposed on the ground that it is a dilatory Motion, the clear

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 289 rights, the rights most unequivocally given to Members by the Rules will be completely null and void. We may feel impatient that a Motion like that of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may be ruled out. We may be ready to turn it down, but that is no reason for not allowing it to be moved. In my humble opinion, it is most assuredly in order and we shall be doing a great injustice if in order to pass a law in which we are keenly interested we whittle down the rights of Members and try to interpret the Rules in a manner convenient to whatever may happen to be the majority at any particular time. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, the only point is that under Rule 52(2) no doubt every Member has a right, but the important point is that it is subject to admissibility which is at the discretion of the Speaker. All that Dr. Ambedkar said was, that we have no doubt the right to ask interpellations, but that certainly does not mean that all interpellations should be put on the Agenda Paper; it is subject to admissibility. There being the discretion, all that you have got to decide now is, whether it is in the nature of a dilatory Motion. You may ask Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to give his reasons. If you are satisfied that he has a good ground to move his Motion, then you have got the discretion to allow him to move it. Therefore, it is now for you, Sir, to ask him and be satisfied; and if you are satisfied that he has valid grounds, certainly he can move the motion. That is a point which Dr. Ambedkar raised. Every Member is entitled to speak and take his chance. All that you are concerned with, is a matter of procedure; the procedure being that a Motion is subject to admissibility, which is within your discretion. I may suggest that you may ask Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to give his grounds and it is ultimately for you to decide whether it is in the nature of a dilatory motion, in which case you have to rule it out of order; but if you are satisfied about the grounds then, you may allow the motion to be moved. Mr. Tajamul Hussain rose— Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Sir, I have something important to say. Mr. Deputy Speaker : On the point of order ? Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Yes, Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker : All right. Mr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar : Muslim): Sir, I caught your eye first. I have also got a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker : After this point of order is disposed of Mr. Tajamul Husain’s point of order will be considered.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES290 Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Sir, you have already quoted the rule. I am sure no ruling can be given by any President against a Rule. The thing is this : there may be a subject under discussion in the House on which opinions may be divided—it is quite natural. One section of the people may look upon the subject as a boon, and the other section may look upon the subject as a danger, as a plague, as a curse. That section of the people who look upon the subject as a curse has the right not only to delay the Motion, but even to kill it. Here also, I think this section has the right to move the Motion and I think justice demands that they may have all the privileges and all the rights. Mr. Tajamul Husain rose — Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is another point of order which the honourable Member is raising, I will come to it next. I am afraid the honourable Member Mr. Naziruddin has himself invited all these points of order because he started one this morning. Apart from any technicalities we may ask Mr. Naziruddin what his purpose is and what important points he has in view in making his motion for circulation. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I think this question .......... Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : May I ask you, before Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad replies, whether you have come to the conclusion that the right of the member to move the re-circulation of the Bill is subject to the discretionary power of the Chair ? Honourable Member rose — Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order, order. Members must respect the Chair. When I stand up, they will kindly sit down. I think I have heard sufficiently. Is it not open to the Chair to ask for reasons ? It does not mean that I have come to a conclusion one way or the other. I am trying to make up my mind. I have heard Mr. Bharathi’s point. Apart from the question as to whether the Chair, under the rules, has got the right to allow or disallow, I want to know on what grounds—if there are any— this motion should be accepted. After hearing that, I shall give my ruling. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : My reply to that is two-fold. The first is the admissiblity of the motion as a matter of law, and secondly as to the reasons for the motion, they are matters of merit. At present, I have been asked by the Chair not to make a speech and I have been entirely prevented from giving the arguments on the merits as

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 291 to why this motion should be accepted. I submit a distinction should be made between the legality and admissibility of the motion and the grounds on which it is based for the acceptance of the same by the house. I submit that at this stage, in order to admit the motion which I have made, I think, Sir, I may not say anything at all. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have heard sufficiently on this matter. So far as Mr. Das, point that this motion is one of a dilatory nature, I consider that this motion differs materially from the one referred to by the Honourable the Minister for Law. He quoted the rulings of the Chair and gave the instance of ruling No. 1 on the postponement or adjournment of the debate. When motions for postponement for which there are no particular rules of procedure are made, it is open to the Chair to treat them as dilatory motions and require to be satisfied on what substantial grounds an adjournment of the debate is necessary. So far as. the present motion for circulation is concerned, it is one for which provision is made in Rule 52(2). The honourable the Minister for Law referred to the analogy of adjournment motions, but regarding adjournment motions there are specific rules laid down here, giving power to the Speaker to come to a conclusion as to whether prima facie a motion is in order or not. I am referring to rule 36. The right to make adjournment motions depends upon certain conditions as in the case of questions. Unless a question comes under one or other categories provided for under the rules it is open to the Speaker to disallow it; similarly, with respect to adjournment motions also, there are six conditions which must be satisfied. There is provision also for asking for leave. First of all, it is open to the Chair, if it so chooses, to say that a motion is not in the public interest, it is old and so on. Secondly, even if he chooses to admit it, he must ask if the motion has the support of at least twenty five members of the House; then leave is granted. In such cases special provisions have been made. This present motion for circulation does not fall in the same category as the others. As regards ruling 120 on page 81, it refers to Select Committee motions. I do not find any ruling of the Chair till now, in either of these two books “Decisions of the Chair” in point stating that a motion for re-circulation is a dilatory motion. In these circumstances, I do not want to curtail the powers of the house. It does not mean, if I allow the motion, the House is obliged to accept it. Even if it is moved, the House may reject it after debate if it is not satisfied. Under these circumstances, inasmuch as the rulings are not clear on this point,

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES292 I do not want to throttle this motion. The honourable Member may proceed. I have already said that honourable Members will first move the motions standing in their names and then there would be a debate on all the motions together. The next amendment stands in the name of Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava and Shri Jhunjhunwala. Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava : The motion moved by my honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is substantially the same. Therefore, I would like to support his motion. Mr. Deputy Speaker : He need not give his reasons for not presenting. What about Mr. Jhunjhunwala ? Shri B. P. Jhunjhunwala (Bihar : General): I join my friend Mr. Bhargava. Mr. Deputy Speaker : So he does not press. Nos. 7 and 8, I have already said are out of order. The scope of the Bill is confined to the provinces and not to any acceding State. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In regard to States which have entirely united themselves within the Indian Dominion, they stand on a different footing. The Eastern States have combined with the province of Orissa. They are now part of India. The bill will apply to them. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I can understand it only this way,—Whether they have become part of a province or not if they are parts of a province, the Bill will apply. It is not necessary that a copy of the Gazette should be sent to every village and every corner of the country. If the State has become a part of province, it takes all the rights and liabilities of the province. I do not see any reason why the Bill should be once again circulated. Therefore I rule admenment No. 7 is out of order. No. 8 is also out of order. No. 9, does Mr. Bhargava move ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I have already said that I do not propose to move. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Then the next amendment. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I beg to move as an alternative to the one which I have already moved: “That the Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee, to which it was sent, for a further report thereon with reference to the original Bill which was referred to it on the 9th April, 1948.” Mr. Deputy Speaker : Amendment moved : “That the Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee to which it was sent for a further report thereon which reference to the original Bill which was referred to it on the 9th April 1948.”