Vol. 15 · pages 221–225

204 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES may then take up the Bill and leave it as part-heard, so that it may take care of itself. An Hon. Member : Dr. Ambedkar will accommodate Mr. Sidhva on a Government day. Dr. Ambedkar : I can arrange that.

205PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (24) ** REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL *The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “ That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950. ” The motion was adopted. * The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I beg to move : “ That the Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950, be taken into consideration.” This bill has two objectives. One is to provide for the representation of Part C States in the Council of States. The second is to enact the provisions made by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950. I propose, first to deal with the first objective of the Bill, namely, to provide for the representation of Part C States, hon. Members will remember that under article 80, clause (5) this matter is left to be dealt with and determined by Parliament by law. There is no provision in the Constitution itself as to how Part C States should be represented in the Upper Chamber. As I said the matter is left to the discretion of Parliament to deal with it by such law as Parliament may deem fit. It is because of this obligation which has been cast upon Parliament that the present Bill has been brought forth. In dealing with this particular matter, it is obvious that three questions have to be dealt with. The first is the nature of the electorate. What * P. D., Vol. 6, Part II, 20th November 1950, p. 267. ** P. D., Vol. 7, Part II, 12th December 1950, pp. 1678-83.

206 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is to be the electorate which is to represent or elect the representatives of Part C States in the Upper Chamber at the Centre? The second is the distribution of the seats which have been assigned to Part C States by the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. And thirdly we have to consider the method of representation, whether they should be elected, by election, by nomination or by some other method. Now, the first question, namely the question of the electorate is dealt with in clause 9 of the Bill and it is to that clause that I propose first to draw the attention of the House. In considering this question, the question of the electorate, the House will remember that the Constitution has laid down the general principle for the composition of the Upper Chamber. That principle will be found in article 80, clause (4). That clause says though it is confined to the representation of Part A and Part B States, that the representation to the Upper Chamber shall be by indirect election by Members of the Legislatures in Part A and Part B States, That being so, in devising a method for securing representation to Part C States in the Upper Chamber, it is necessary and obligatory to follow that principle namely, that the representation shall be by the indirect method. Now, in following this method, there is one difficulty that stands up at the outset. So far as Part A and Part B States are concerned, the electorate already exists, namely, the Assemblies in the various Part A and Part B States. With regard to Part C States, there are no such Assemblies in existence and one does not know when Parliament will undertake any kind of Legislation to provide a more popular method of administering Part C States. Consequently, we must proceed upon the hypothesis that no Legislative bodies exist in Part C States, nor are they likely to come into being by the time the elections take place. The question, therefore, is what should be the nature of the electorate. Obviously, the only other method that comes to one’s mind is to resort to the existing local bodies in all Part C States, such as municipal committees, town committees, village panchayats 12 NOON.

207PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES and so on and so forth, and to permit members of these local bodies to be registered as voters. It was, however, found that probably this method of election may not provide a sufficiently large constituency. We have no idea as to how many municipal committees, town committees and village panchayats may be existing in various Part C States. It may be that in some Part C States there may be a plethora of them, and it may be that in some other Part C States there may be a great paucity of them. Consequently, in order to create a solid electorate, it is felt that in addition to the membership of these local bodies, it would be desirable if the franchise was extended to persons who have undergone some University examination. Therefore, in addition to membership to the local bodies, it is proposed, in this bill that matriculates or persons holding other equivalent qualifications may also be permitted to be registered as voters, provided they have the necessary qualification on the qualifying date, and have put in the necessary period of residence during the qualifying period. That is the general provision contained in clause 9 which seeks to introduce after section 25 of the original Act, new sections 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D. This is the nature of the electorate that this Bill proposes to bring into existence for the purpose of electing representatives to Part C States in the Upper Chamber. I will take up the other two questions which I said, necessarily require consideration. The second question is nomination versus election. This mater is dealt with in clause 4 of the Bill. In this connection, it is felt that so far as the two States of Manipur and Tripura are concerned, election will not be possible, for the simple reason that so far as these two States are concerned, there are hardly any local authorities existing there. Therefore, the basis of the general proposal which is introduced by clause 9 does not exist at all so far as these two States are concerned. Tripura is really a tribal area. Manipur is a very backward area. There are hardly any of these local bodies and organisations. The educational status of these two States is also very backward. Consequently, it is not hoped that even if the educational qualification was introduced, it would be possible to obtain a sufficiently large

208 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES electorate to permit of elections being introduced in the representation of these two States. Consequently it is felt that the only course left is to secure the representation of these two States by nomination by the President and it is proposed that their nomination should alternate at the end of a two year period—once a representative of Manipur would be nominated by the President for the first two years and in the second two year period a representative of Tripura would be nominated. In the rest of Part C States the representation would be by election. A further question, as I said, arises, namely the distribution of the seats. The House will remember or it can see by reference to Schedule IV that that Schedule in three cases has given one seat to two States. Those three cases are Manipur and Tripura, Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur, which together have one seat and Ajmer and Coorg have together one seat. There are two methods for regulating the representation of these states which have one seat jointly between them. One is to treat them as one constituency and the other is to treat them as two different constituencies and give them alternate representation. The case of Manipur and Tripura has already been disposed of, because the question of election does not arise there. That is a case which is governed by nomination. With regard to Ajmer and Coorg it is proposed that they should be represented by election separately in rotation—once the seat should be filled by election in Ajmer and the second time it should be filled by representation from Coorg. With regard to Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur it is proposed that the two States should be treated as one constituency and they should in a joint election elect one representative. The House will no doubt say that we have given one treatment to Ajmer and Coorg and a different treatment to Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur. The argument is apparently correct. But I do not see how it is possible to treat these two series of States on a common footing. It will be realised that Ajmer and Coorg are not territorially contiguous. It will also