Vol. 15 · pages 226–230

209PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES be realised that their cultural outlook, their mode and manner of life, their economic problems are altogether different and distinct. It can hardly be said that a representative of Ajmer could very well represent the problems and difficulties of the people of Coorg or vice versa. But with regad to Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur the two are conguous : in fact it is only by some accident, which I am unable for the moment to understand or to explain, that the States Ministry decided to keep the two in two distinct watertight compartments. I should have thought that the two could have been amalgamated into one. I have no doubt that that will happen : perhaps it may happen long before the election takes place. Therefore I do not see any justification why the principle of divisive constituency, which has been adopted in the case of Ajmer and Coorg for the circumstances which I have mentioned, must necessarily logically and as a matter of categorical imperative apply to Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur. Therefore, what is proposed is that Manipur and Tripura would have separate electorates but their representation would be regulated by nomination by the President for a period of two years in rotation. With regard to Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur they would form one constituency and in a joint election elect one representative. With regard to Ajmer and Coorg the provision is that for a period of two years Ajmer will enjoy the seat reserved for two and subsequently Coorg will enjoy the seat which is reserved for both. Those are the provisions, which we have made in the Bill with regard to the representation of Part C States. As I said at the outset, this Bill had a double objective. One was to make provision for the representation of Part C States in the Upper Chamber. The second objective was to give the effect of law to the provisions contained in the Ordinance. I will briefly explain to the House why it became necessary for Government to issue this Ordinance. As the House will remember, at one time Government felt that elections could be held in the months of April and May and they were very keen about it and wanted to do everything possible to give

210 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES effect to that intention. On the examination of the circumstances, as I then said, it was found that in certain areas electoral rolls were not ready and in certain areas constituencies had not been delimited. If we had allowed the original provisions contained in the People’s Representation Act 1950 what would have been the position? The position would have been this. Under the Original Act the Election Commissioner is bound to publish preliminary electoral rolls—I am using the words “ preliminary electoral rolls ” constituencywise. That was the first step in the process of election. After that was done two or three processes had to be undergone. One was the inviting of claims and objections, the second was to have the claims and representations dealt with by some authority judicial or otherwise and to have them disposed of: and thirdly, to enter all the corrections consequent upon the decision of the revising authority into the electoral rolls and then to publish them finally. Speaking for the moment and taking into consideration the time that would have been necessary to go through these processes, the position would have been this. After the constituencies were delimited, certainly three weeks or one month ought to be given to the electors to make their claims and objections. You could not fairly give less than that time. Thereafter, at least two months would be necessary for the revising authority, I am giving a very conservative estimate, two months would be necessary for the revising authority to dispose of claims and objections. That means three months. Add one more month for revising the electoral rolls in the light of the decision of the revising authority. That means four months. Assuming that the preliminary electoral rolls were prepared by the end of this month, which I don’t think is a very sanguine hope—but supposing that was so—it is quite obvious that following the principles embodied in the original People’s Representation Act, the final electoral rolls could not have been published even by the end of April or May. That meant that if we had followed literally the provisions contained in the original Act, the elections could not have taken place in the month of April and May. As

211PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Government were very keen in having the elections in April and May, Government felt that that would have been possible only if the process was reversed. If claims and objections were invited on the basis of electoral rolls prepared for units or for areas, and they were disposed of, and after they were disposed of electoral rolls on the basis of constituencies were made, perhaps the time that would be utilised after the constituency-wise electoral rolls were prepared could be used in the beginning so that the process of claims and objections and revisions could be got rid of and possibly the elections could have taken place in the month of April and May. It was from this point of view that Government felt that the process might be reversed, that is to say, claims and objections might be invited on the basis of preliminary electoral rolls not prepared on the basis of constituencies but on the basis of area. That is what the Ordinance did. Now, it might be asked that since the date of the election has been postponed, is it desirable to give effect to the Ordinance? The answer to that is simple: a large part of the work which is required to be done by the Election Commissioner in the matter of the preparation of the rolls has already been done, and if the Ordinance does not become law, all that work will have to be thrown overboard and the Election Commissioner would have to begin his work de novo. (An Hon. Member: Reverse gear). Reverse gear, as my friend says. I don’t think the House will desire that such a thing should happen. I am not merely considering the question of time but also the question of money which Government has spent over the work that has already been done. We have taken care in the Bill that the provisions of the Ordinance would apply only for the first elections so that in the subsequent elections the provisions of principal Act will govern the conduct of elections and the preparation of the electoral rolls. That is why we are seeking the permission of the House to give effect to this Ordinance. The other provisions in the Bill are purely consequential— changing of qualifying date and qualifying period, and so on and so on. I don’t think I need detain the House over them.

212 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The House will be able to see for itself what those amendments are. Mr. Speaker : Motion moved : “ That the Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950, be taken into consideration. ” * Shri Sarwate (Madhya Bharat) : I may in this connection refer to article 240 of the Constitution which says that “ as soon as possible....” Dr. Ambedkar : Where is “ as soon as possible ” ? Shri Sarwate : It was meant when the article was framed. ** Shri Kamath : So far as the present Bill is concerned and so far as the Member for Manipur and Tripura in the Council of States is concerned, this Bill is silent on the point whether the President will nominate a Member who has got experience of these matters or has got a special knowledge of these matters. I would like Dr. Ambedkar to throw some light on this, but my impression is that the nominated Member will be in addition to the 12 which are referred to in clause (1) (a) of article 80 of the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar : He would be out of the 238. Shri Kamath : I am glad that Dr. Ambedkar has given us the correct interpretation of this article. Therefore it is 13. Mr. Tyagi tells me that it is a bad number; I do not know whether it is really bad. * Mr. Speaker : I was referring to all the Members, from Part A, Part B and Part C States, because all are interested in a proper democratic set-up. I mentioned particularly those from Part C States because it is only those that are most affected by this Bill. That is why I suggested that they should * P. D., Vol. 7, Part II, 13th December 1950, p. 1711. ** Ibid., p. 1716. ***Ibid., 14th December 1950, p. 1779-80.

213PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES be given a fuller chance. That was the point But all should meet. So, if that is acceptable I think I may put off this matter and go to the next item of business. Is that agreeable? The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I am prepared to accept that suggestion. Shri J.R. Kapoor : May I complete what I wanted to say? Mr. Speaker : Order, order. He will now have ample opportunity of talking, and more fully, in the informal conference. The Hon. the Law Minister will hear him more fully than what he can do now. So we might adjourn this matter. But when shall we take it up? It is an important matter. An hon. Member : Day after tomorrow. Mr. Speaker : The Hon. the Law Minister might say when we shall take it up. Hon. Members will see that we intend to finish the session by the 20th. An hon. Member : By the 21st. Mr. Speaker : Well, the 21st. But unless you have the break from the 20th. it wont’t be possible. Shri Sondhi (Punjab) : 21st is a standby. Mr. Speaker : Yes. Dr. Ambedkar : I suggest Saturday either morning or evening—after the House rises or before it meets. Mr. Speaker : I am not talking of the time for the conference. They can meet at any time. I was asking as to when we are to take up this business again. Dr. Ambedkar : On Monday. Mr. Speaker : I have no objection. Then let us put it off to Monday the 18th by which time we expect something agreed will come up. I am really sorry for interrupting Mr. Kapoor’s speech, but then the House will be thankful to him for having agreed to stop his speech.