Vol. 15 · pages 176–180

159PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES constituency of a different class. A teachers’ constituency is a constituency of a different class. Similarly, the local authorities’ constituency is a different class of constituency. Consequently, there does not seem to be any very great anomaly if the name of a person is included in the electoral rolls of different classes of constituencies. Besides, I am really bound to say this : I cannot understand why Members of Parliament are so much exercised over the constitution of the Upper Chamber. It is an utterly effected body—not even an ornamental one. It has no power—not even power of revision. It is not a body with co-equal authority with the Lower Chamber. Some provinces desired that they should have them. They were probably under the impression that their Second Chamber would be a Second Chamber more or less on the same pattern of the Chamber here, which would have the authority to hold up, if not financial legislation, at least ordinary legislation. But even that power is not there and I do not understand why Members of Parliament, even for the sake of merely maintaining some theoretical principle bother their head about a constitutional body which I say is of no value and no consequence. Clause 27 was added to the Bill. Clauses 28 and 29 Dr. Ambedkar : I had assured my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava that I would make a statement on the point in which he is interested and I do now say that we shall take every care to see that the existing electoral rolls are revised and any omissions or additions that are necessary will be made. Clauses 28 and 29 were added to the Bill. New Clause 30 Dr. Ambedkar : I beg to move : After clause 29, add : “30. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred. —No civil court shall have jurisdiction— (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in a electoral roll for a constituency; or 5-00 P.M.

160 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (b) to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of an Electoral Registration Officer, or of any decision given by any authority appointed under the Act for the revision of any such roll.” This is a usual clause and was omitted inadvertently. The motion was adopted. New clause 30 was added to the Bill. Schedules Dr. Ambedkar : I beg to move : ( i) In the First schedule,—- ( a) for the entries under the heading “Part C States” substitute : “1. Ajmer … 2 2. Bhopal … 2 3. Bilaspur … 1 4. Coorg … 1 5. Delhi … 4 6. Himachal Pradesh … 3 7. Kutch … 2 8. Manipur … 2 9. Tripura … 2 10. Vindhya Pradesh … 6 11. Andaman and Nicobar Islands . … 1” (b) against “Total”, for “488” substitute “496”. (ii) In the Second Schedule, in column 2, for existing entries, substitute : “108 339 315 232 375 140 126 430 238 175 99 99 60 160 60 108”

161PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (iii) In the Third Schedule, in column 2 to 7, against “Bihar”, “ Bombay”, “ Madras” and “ Uttar Pradesh”, for existing entries, substitute : “72 24 6 6 24 12” (iv) For the Fourth Schedule, substitue: “THE FOURTH SCHEDULE [ See section 27(2) ] Local Authorities for purposes of elections to Legislative Councils BIHAR 1. Municipalities. 2. District Boards. 3. Cantonment Boards. 4. Notified Area Committees. 5. The Patna Administration Committee. BOMBAY 1. Municipalities. 2. District Local Boards. 3. Cantonment Boards. MADRAS 1. Municipalities. 2. District Boards. 3. Cantonment Boards. 4. Major Panchayats, that is to say, Panchayats notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette Panchayats which exercise jurisdiction over an area containing a population of not less than five thousand and whose income for the financial year immediately preceding the date of the notification was not less than ten thousand rupees. PUNJAB 1. Municipalities. 2. District Boards. 3. Cantonment Boards. 4. Small Town Committees. 5. Notified Area Committees.

162 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES * D. Vol. 4, Part 11, 20th April 1950, pp. 3092-93. UTTAR PRADESH 1. Municipalities. 2. District Boards. 3 Cantonment Boards. 4. Town Area Committees. 5 Notified Area Committees. WEST BENGAL 1. Municipalities. 2 District Boards. 3. Cantonment Boards. 4 Local Boards. MYSORE 1. Municipalities. 2 District Boards.” Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendments moved. * Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I suggest one course ? Those who are satisfied with the number of seats allotted need not speak. We have got another Bill. Other hon. Members who have got any representation to make may make their points. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: I want to say a few words. Dr. Ambedkar: You have got four seats all right. Shri Gautam (Uttar Pradesh): I do not want to take much time of the House. I rise to oppose the amendment moved by Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor. I want to say that we the people of U.P. and the Government of U.P. are satisfied with the number 72 so far as the Upper House is concerned. We do not want any more and— Shri J. B. Kapoor: Does the hon. Member claim to be the sole representative of the U.P. both of Government and the people ? Shri Gautam : I know the mind of the Government and I am in a position to say that I know the mind of the people. I can claim that I represent the Congress organisation as a General Secretary and I can say that I do represent some people, at least, him.

163PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES * P. D., Vol. 4, Part II, 20th April 1950, p. 3095-96. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: That is Jaspat Roy Kapoor ? Shri Gautam: If he is a Congress-man. Shri Tyagi: I am an Ex-General Secretary. Shri Gautam: Dr. Ambedkar has no personal axe of his own to grind. He is not interested in the U.P. At the request of some of us, he has reduced the number. He is neither in favour of 72 nor of 86. It is we who requested him and he has accepted our request. We are obliged to him for that. Therefore I oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor. *Dr. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not think I can at this late stage enter into any elaborate arguments with regard to the various matters, constitutional or otherwise, which have been raised. I do not think we have violated the Constitution as my friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari supposes in giving the allotted seats mentioned in the First Schedule to Part C States. We are perfectly within our constitutional rights in allotting the seats in this schedule. With regard to the amendment of the Third Schedule my friend Pandit Kunzru would have seen that it is only in one case as a matter of fact that the total number is reduced and that is with regard to Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madras also. Dr. Ambedkar: I was coming to it. I am taking Uttar Pradesh for my observation. There I am confronted with the fact that the State Government is very chary of increasing the size of the Upper Chamber and sitting as we are at Delhi, I do not like to sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government as to what is the suitable number for their Upper Chamber. They have thought that 72 is the proper and sufficient number for their Upper Chamber and it is on that basis that I have reduced 86 to 72. With regard to the changes made in the total number of Bihar, Bombay and Madras, I might say that the proposition enunciated by Mr. Tyagi today in the informal meeting that the total number should be divisible by 12 did appeal to me and it is for that reason that