Vol. 15 · pages 106–110

89PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES not, constitutionally speaking validate the membership of the Deputy Ministers and the Ministers of State; it will not remove the disqualification which they have incurred already. Dr. Ambedkar : With your permission, Sir, I would just like to mention that there is nothing original in this point. It is borrowed from the view of the Patna High Court. But I find both my friend Mr. Tyagi and Mr. Kamath are making this point. The President is not the court; the President may take a very different view from what the court may take. *Shri Kamath : The Constitution does not make that clear at all. It refers only to Cabinet Ministers, as Dr. Ambedkar said, and that was why the Ordinance was promulgated by the President. Sir, the next point is this. Some Hon. Members : It is time for the House to rise. Mr. Deputy Speaker : hon. Members are giving him a little more time ? Shri Kamath : Because of the legal points in which my hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar is interested .......... Dr. Ambedkar : I am interested only in getting the Bill through. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House wants to rise evidently. The House stands adjourned till 2-30. The House then adjourned for Lunch till Half-Past Two of the Clock. The House re-assembled after Lunch at Half-Past Two of the Clock. [MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair ] Shri Kamath : Sir, the Law Minister is not here. Shri Sidhva: The Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs is there. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Yes, *P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 10th March 1950, pp. 1349-50.

90 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Kamath : Oh, the Law Minister has come. I am glad that my hon. friend has arrived in the nick of time. I am glad also that in the forenoon he admitted— casually, of course—that a mistake, constitutional though technical, had been committed in respect of this matter. Dr, Ambedkar : I have not admitted any such thing at all. Shri Kamath : He referred to the Patna High Court ruling and said that Mr. Tyagi and myself are taking a stand upon that ruling and that we need not go very deep into that aspect of the matter. He further went on to say that he is not interested in legal issues or legal points—he is interested in merely getting the Bill passed or rushed through, I do not remember what was the word he used. May I ask you, Sir, and the House, that if the Minister of Law is not interested in legal points who would be interested in legal points ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Leave that alone. Shri Kamath : Sir, that concerns the right of the Members of this House. The Minister of Law is there and he says that he is not interested in legal points. Dr. Ambedkar : I am interested in the merits of the case. Shri Kamath: Sir, legal points to a Law Minister at least—if he means to be a Law Minister in truth, in fact and in earnest—must be as much a case of merit as of law. Mr. Deputy Speaker : What is the good of misunderstanding the Hon. the Law Minister ? He says, “So far as the law is concerned, leave it to me. Please tell me facts if there are any.” Shri Kamath : May I ask on a point of right as a Member of the House whether if a Minister takes a particular stand, a Member cannot raise a point of privilege of the House ? I do not know what the future has in store for him ; he perhaps is thinking of some other portfolio. I do not know anything about reshuffling of portfolios but there are lots of reports in the papers. But I feel that it should not have been stated in the House that a Minister of Law is not interested in legal points.

91PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar : Parliament is not a Court. Parliament (Prevention of disqualification) Bill *Mr. Deputy Speaker : Dr. Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar : I find that Members have really travelled ground which is far away from the main proposition embodied in this Bill. I have been asked to explain how this doubt arose. In whose mind did it arise first ? I have been asked to explain how is it that in no other country such as Australia or Canada is any such legislation found necessary ? Well, with regard to the first point, I have no hesitation in saying that I myself felt doubts. I admit that, because notwithstanding many allegations that have been made, I was to some extent responsible for the framing of the Constitution. I have no hesitation in saying that I do not know of any Constitution in the world which can be said to be proof against doubt or against any kind of wrong understanding. Otherwise, if every Constitution was proof against doubt that would not have been these voluminous decisions of the various Supreme Courts in the different countries. Therefore, if I felt even as Chairman of the Drafting Committee that there was doubt in this matter, I am not ashamed to acknowledge it and there is nothing cavalierly in my behaviour when I say there is some doubt in this matter. I shall explain why I felt there was doubt. My friend, Mr. Krishnamachari said that the phrase ‘Council of Ministers’ was taken really from the Government of India Act, 1935 where the language used was ‘Council of Ministers’ and that language was evidently borrowed by the draftsmen of the 1935 Act from the older Act where the words were ‘Executive Council’. Now, I felt that if anybody was to interpret the phrase ‘Council of Ministers’ he would, no doubt, be justified in taking into consideration the circumstances in which that phrase ‘Executive Council’ was used, and would be justified, in interpreting the intention of the phrase ‘Council of *P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 10th March 1950, pp. 1360-64.

92 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Ministers’ by reference to the ‘Executive Council’. Now, it is quite obvious that the ‘Executive Council’ meant only members of the Executive Council of the rank of Ministers, because at that time there did not exist any such category of people as we call now by the names Deputy Minister or Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary or Parliamentary Under Secretary. These are offices which have been created long after the Government of India Act, 1935 in its original form ceased to be in existence. I, therefore, felt that probably as we had especially not defined the word ‘Minister’ or ‘Council of Ministers’ in the article dealing with definitions, it would be open to anybody to suggest that the ‘Council of Ministers’ was a phrase used on the same analogy as the ‘Executive Council’ and therefore it would be open for anybody to say that these officers were not intended to be included. That is the basis of the doubt which I felt, and I do not see any reason why Parliament should not be called upon to pass a law to place the matter beyond doubt. I do not think, therefore, that there is any unwarranted attempt on the part of the Government to force upon the Parliament a Bill the object of which is to remove doubt. I can point out many cases where Parliaments have passed Acts for the purpose of removing a doubt, and I do not think I am asking Parliament to enter upon any very extraordinary activity in doing the same with regard to this Bill. With regard to the point raised by my friend, Pandit Kunzru, as to how the Governments in Canada or Australia or other Dominions are carrying on their affairs without any such legislation as is proposed now, I really want to know from him whether he thinks that the Constitution of Australia or Canada does not contain any such provisions as is embodied in Article 102, laying down disqualifications on the ground of holding an office of profit. I have had time only to refer to the Australian Constitution and there is a definite section there that a person holding an office of profit under the Crown shall not be qualified for being a Member of Parliament. Pandit Kunzru : That is right.

93PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar : I do not know whether he had had the time to examine any law made by the Australian Parliament to overcome any difficulties which undoubtedly must arise by reason of that particular section in the Australian Constitution. I have not had the time to examine it, but I just cannot understand how, if the Australian Parliament does permit its Members to hold offices of profit and at the same time sit in Parliament and be Members, they could have done so without some kind of legislation. As I said, I have not had the time to study this, but prima facie it seems to me one of the most impossible propositions that the Australian Parliament should be permitting its Members to sit in the Parliament, vote and take part in the proceedings and at the same time hold offices of profit, without a law such as the one proposed here, but I cannot say. Now, I come to another point and it is this. My friend, Mr. Kamath, among the various points that he was seeking to make which on account of my limited intelligence I could not unfortunately follow, made one point which, I think, I could follow and which, I think, requires some kind of explanation. He has said that the draft of the Bill brings in also a member of the Government of any State, and his contention was that the draft was clumsy. I think that if he had read the clause carefully and also referred to clause 1 of Article 102, would have seen that the language is not only necessary but perfectly justified. My friend will realise that clause 2 of the Bill deals with two cases, one for being chosen as a Member, and one for being a Member, that is to say, continuing to be a Member. Now, it is proposed that not only a person holding an office of profit under the Government of India should not be disqualified from standing as a Member of Parliament, but similarly a Minister of State or Deputy Minister or Parliamentary Secretary or Parliamentary Under-Secretary who is holding that office in a State, he also, if he wishes to stand in the general election for membership of Parliament, should not be disqualified by reason of the fact that he holds that office in the State. That is the reason why holding an office of profit in a State has also to be brought in because