Vol. 14, Part I · pages 346–350

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES328 Committee though the other draft which he placed before the Select Committee was considered along with the original Bill. As any honourable member is entitled to place amendments before the Select Committee instead of sending piecemeal amendments, according to him, he printed all his amendments and placed them before the Committee. That is the ruling of the Honourable the Speaker. Barring that, the honourable member can go on. Nobody doubts the position stated in May’s Parliamentary Practice that it is not open to a member even though he may be the mover of the Bill, to change the Bill when the house is seized of it. The Honourable the Speaker has said this has not been done. We are bound by that; otherwise the honourable member may go on. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I wanted to submit only this much that after hearing your opinion I have become still more staunch on my belief. You have decided that if it is somehow proved that in fact no amendments on this controversy came before the Select Committee then it should be accepted that the redrafted Bill should not have been considered. For this reason I would submit that I have no need to quote the ruling again before you. Sir, I have got a ruling of Hansard Vol. 215 of 1873 wherein at page 302 it has been laid down that if a member gives notice of introducing a Bill and this Bill is printed then that member cannot make any changes in the Bill before the second reading, and if he makes any changes then the Honourable the Speaker gave the ruling that the Bill be withdrawn—the Bill cannot be further discussed. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The position of law is accepted, there is no need to convass that. I do not think the Honourable the Law Minister denies the postion of law that he is not entitled to changes . . . The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law): No. Mr. Deputy Speaker : . . . . any comma or semi colon except as accepted by the Select Committee. But it is open to him to place matters before the Select Committee. I think that was the ruling of the Chair. The honourable member may go on. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargva : Sir, very respectfully I wish to submit that if the other original Bill is placed before the House then I will have no objection. Had this Bill been considered in the House in this manner then nobody would have any objections. After being introduced in this manner the Bill should have been technically considered clause by clause and word by word. If this procedure has

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 329 not been adopted and if the Bill was sent to the Select Committee and in the Select Committee it was not considered word by word and clause by clause then I would like to ask if the first Bill was before the honourable member or was it in his pocket or had he come after reading it at his house. I wish to draw your attention Sir, towards Parliamentary Practice. No member of the Select Committee has any claims against this. I have with me strong reasons and I wish to draw your attention Sir, towards them. In the first place perhaps in the majority report it is written: “We confined our deliberations to this redrafted Bill.” Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : May I interrupt ? This is not correct. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : The original Bill has not been considered clause by clause and word by word in the actual sense of the term. In the popular sense as the Honourable the Speaker said before and in the sense in which Shri Balkrishna Sharma submitted before the House, the Bill was before us, then I have no objection against the Bill. I am prepared to accept that whatever Shri Balkrishna Sharma and the Honourable the Speaker have stated . . . . (English translation of Hindi speeches is over ) Shrimati G. Durgabai : On a point of order. He is questioning the ruling of the Speaker.. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I understand the honourable member, though I do not understand every word that he says, I am bound to safeguard the ruling of the Speaker. I am not interested in seeing that what I may have said today, may be upset by a Chairman who follows me. The ruling of the Speaker is there. Though the honourable member speaks forcibly on one or two points, I understand that he wants to persuade the house to allow the country an opportunity to consider the Bill. That is all that he means (Honourable Member “NO. no.”. I may say immediately I do not intend to go behind the ruling of the Speaker.) Any arguments that may be advanced for consideration by the house of the country at large is welcomed but not in a spirit to question the ruling of the Speaker. Dr. Mono Mohan Das : On a point of information. I want to be informed whether the next ten minutes will be taken up by the honourable Member so that we who do not understand Hindustani could return to our hotels. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Since you have been pleased to say that you do not follow me and I want every word to be followed by the House and by your goodself I will speak in my broken English.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES330 Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar (Madras : General): Hitherto you have had no consideration for those who did not know Hindi. There is a large number of them here and if you do not care for them and you do not want them to listen, it is your own look out. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I had already decided to speak in English and my friend’s orders are only supplementary. But after what you have been pleased to say, I will continue in English. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Whatever has been heared has been heared in Hindustani. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not going to repeat all that I have said as it will not be possible. In future I shall submit to you what I have to say, so that I may not be charged for attempting . . . . Mr. Tajamul Husain : There should be no repetition. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I do not want to be ordered by Mr. Tajamul Husain. If he does not want to ... Mr. Tajamul Husain : I am addressing the Chair. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I do not want Mr. Tajamul Husain to make unintelligent interruptions. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sorry that, Mr. Tajamul Husain goes on interrupting repeatedly. I am here to protect the house so that there is no repetition. It is unfortunate that we are spending much time in this way. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I do not want to repeat. I submit that the manner in which the Honourable the Speaker gave his ruling I respect it and I will not say a word against the ruling, though I maintain. Sir, that ruling is not the last word. Mr. Tajamul Husain : It is the last word in this House. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not going to be taunted by these things. I think the House can revise its own order. I can quote a ruling to this effect from the book ‘Decisions of Chair. At the same time, let the house not think that I am asking the Deputy Speaker to review that order at this stage. I am not doing so. Let the House not be impatient. But may I ask where is the rule that a ruling once given cannot be revised ? There is no such rule. Since I am not attempting to get the ruling revised., this does not arise. What I was saying was that the ruling of the Speaker was to this effect that the Bill was considered along with this redrafted Bill not in the actual sense nor in the technical sense in which we understand what

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 331 “consideration” is. I submitted for your consideration that in the technical sense in which we use the word “considered” this Bill was never considered. Shri Mohan Lal Gautam : I beg to state that this is a repitition of what he spoke in Hindustani. Mr. Deputy Speaker : In so far as to enable me to understand the full implications. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Without these preliminary remarks I could not make myself understood and those who know would have realized that I could not do more than this. I was submitting with a view to convince you that as a matter of fact the real consideration, technically so called, was only given to the redrafted Bill. I said that I wanted to submit certain arguments : firstly, the report says that “we confined our deliberations to the redrafted Bill”. Secondly, Sir, the dissenting note of Bakshi Tek Chand as well as of Balkrishna Sharma says the same thing. I do not want to read further because the members have read it and it will be waste of time to read it again. When Mr. Balkrishna Sharma spoke the Honourable the Speaker was pleased to accept his statement. He again repeated in his speech that “we confined our attention to this redrafted Bill” : and when you see the report you will find that in the report itself there are some indications for instance in clause 99 that only the re-drafted Bill was considered in the technical sense. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not able to follow what the honourable Member is driving at so far as this is concerned. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am sorry I have not heard what has fallen from Mr. K. C. Sharma. Honourable Members : Order, order. Mr. Tajamul Hussain : Sit down ! Mr. Deputy Speaker : If you will permit me I will try to get along. There are two questions. If it is a question that we ought not to proceed with this Bill, then that point has been decided, The Bill has been taken into consideration. The Speaker has said that this Bill was before the Select Committee and with the other amendments that have been tabled. Therefore, so far as that matter is concerned, I may immediately say I am not in a position to go beyond the ruling of the Speaker. Apart from the question of a similar case in the Civil Procedure Code, a ruling has been given and it is not desirable to go over it in the same case. It may not be a precedent for some others.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES332 When it comes up in any other connection it will be open to the Chair or members of the house or whoever might occupy the Chair for the time being to go behind the previous ruling. At this stage in the same proceedings I am not prepared to go behind it. In these circumstances I would like to ask the honourable member for what purpose these arguments are raised. If as I understood sometime ago, it is only for the purpose of persuading the House to accept the motion for circulation in view of the fact that the Select Committee did not look into the original draft but the other one, both of them were before the House. So it is not as a point of order but for the purpose of persuading the House, which I can understand. For that reason May’s Parliamentary Practice and other rulings need not be referred to. So far as the matter of law is concerned enough has been said and I would request the honourable member, if possible, to conclude this portion of his argument and proceed to some other matter; Siri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General) : Sir, the previous speaker, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava said that the Speaker’s ruling is not final. May I, Sir,’ draw your attention . . . Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not want any further arguments on the matter. I have already given my ruling that so far as this proceeding is concerned the Speaker’s ruling is final. I cannot allow any questioning of that. It is therefore unnecessary to reinforce the argument or to strengthen my hands. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, it is far from my mind to invite you to give a ruling contrary to the Speaker’s. I am not going to request you to do that. I can quite understand that it is not desirable to review a ruling when it is given in the same case, though I know according to law you are perfectly competent to give another ruling. The law is not so narrow as not to provide for cases in which injustice is perpetrated. So I shall desist from speaking any futher on this subject that the ruling of the Chair may be looked into. What I am submitting is mat mere are several motions before the House and it is not the only motion for circulation. This Bill could go before the same Select Committee and it could come back to the House in 15 days. As I submitted already it is not a matter of dilatory tactics. All that I want is that the house should adopt a procedure which is according to law and which is fundamentally right. I am a member of this House and as such I have a right to see that the Bill sent to Select Committee is considered in a manner which the law requires. There is no escape,