Vol. 15 · pages 251–255

234 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (iii) In the amendment proposed by me, in the proposed new clause 10B, after sub-section (4) of the proposed new section 27A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, add the following new sub-section : “(5) the electoral college for the State of Delhi shall consist of— (a) the members of the House of the People representing that State; (b) the non-official members of the Advisory Council of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi; and (c) the non-official members of every Cantonment Board, District Board, Municipal Committee and Notified Area Committee within that State.” (iv) In the amendment proposed by me, in the proposed new clause 10B, in the proposed new section 27B of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after the words “any State or group of States “insert the words” specified in the first column of the Fifth Schedule”. ( v) In the amendment proposed by me, in the proposed new clause 10B, in sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 27F of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after the words “for any State or group of States” insert the words “specified in the First column of the fifth Schedule”. (vi) “That the necessary corrections for the numbering and lettering of the clauses in the Bill and of the sections inserted by the Bill be carried out together with consequential corrections of cross references.” * Mr. Speaker : Amendment moved : (as above) In the amendment by Dr. Ambedkar, in the proposed new clause 10B, in clause ( b) of the proposed new section 27J of the Representation of the People Act, 1950,— ( i) after the words “so created” occurring in line one, insert the words “jointly or”, (ii) after the words “then after” occurring in line three, insert the words “such body has or”; and (iii) after the words “constitution of” occurring in line six, insert the words “such body or”. I should like the Hon. Law Minister to clarify the point. Dr. Ambedkar : There are two objections to this amendment. The first is a Constitutional objection which arises out of the * P. D., Vol. 7, Part II, 12th December 1950, pp. 2259-60.

235PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES provisions contained in article 240 of the Constitution. I think it is quite clear from the amendment of my hon. friend Dr. Parmar that he supposes that it would be possible for Parliament to create one single legislature for these two areas, namely Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur. I submit that it would not be open to Parliament to do any such thing because article 240 says : “Parliament may by law create or continue for any State specified in Part C of the First Schedule...” which means that if Parliament wants to create legislative bodies for the States mentioned in Part C, it shall have to create for each Part C State a separate legislative body. There is no authority given by article 240 to create a joint legislature. On that ground, this amendment is not in order. My second submission is this. I believe my hon. friend suggested that it might be possible for Bilaspur to be merged in Himachal Pradesh, and in that event, that would constitute a single State. That possibility, I do not deny; but the consequence of that would be that we shall have to amend this Bill and make Bilaspur a merged State, which stands on a quite different footing, and would not come within the four corners of the Bill as presented to Parliament. Therefore, my submission is that it is not possible for me to accept the amendment in view of the objections that I have stated. Shri J. N. Hazarika (Assam) : Sir, section 27J which has now been renumbered as 27K is absolutely unnecessary, because this clause is likely to create …………… Mr. Speaker : To which clause is the hon. Member referring? Shri J. N. Hazarika : Section 27J. It is likely to create some delusion in the minds of the people in Part C States. Mr. Speaker : Hon. Member may please see that section 27J has just been replaced by an amendment which has been carried by this House. Would he refer to the new section 27J as just adopted by the House? Shri J. N. Hazarika : It has become 27K now.

236 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : After my amendment, section 27J would become 27K. * Mr. Speaker : ……….. Then we come to the first amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to his own amendment. After disposing of it, we shall come to the main amendment. The first amendment which Dr. Ambedkar has moved to his own amendment is in Supplementary List No. 8. Dr. Ambedkar : The one about the addition of the words “so specified”. Mr. Speaker : The amendment is, more or less, a formal one. The question is : In the amendment by Dr. Ambedkar, in the proposed new clause 10B, in sub-section ( 3) of the proposed new section 27A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after the words “for any State or group of States” occurring in line two, insert the words “so specified”. The motion was adopted. Mr. Speaker : Then we come to the second amendment. That is also, more or less, a formal amendment. The question is : In the amendment by Dr. Ambedkar, in the proposed new clause 10B, in sub-section ( 4) of the proposed new section 27A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after the words “electoral college” insert the words, brackets and figure “for any such State or group of States as is referred to in sub-section (2)”. The motion was adopted. Mr. Speaker : Now we come to the amendment regarding the Electoral College for the State of Delhi, and which is proposed to be added as sub-section (5) of section 27A. What does Mr. Tyagi want to say? , Shri Tyagi : Sir, I only want to enquire what will be the meaning of the word “non-official”. Dr. Ambedkar : Other than official, that is all. * P.D., Vol. 7, Part II, 22nd December 1950, pp. 2263-64.

237PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES * Shri Tyagi : ………. Those who have no office, they are non-official, persons like me, Sir. But persons like Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar they hold offices, and they are not non-officials. I hold no office and therefore, I am a non-official. Therefore, I request that a clear definition of the word “non-official” may be given, unless it be that it is given in some other Act. Otherwise this will lead to difficulties. Dr. Ambedkar : The word “non-official” is so elemental that I should have thought that it would be very, very difficult to find a simpler phraseology; and I suggest to my friend Mr. Tyagi that if he was involved in any legal dispute about this word, if he engages even a third-class lawyer, he will be able to get sufficient advice. ** Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : I only want to point out that there is no official Member of the Advisory Council. Here in (b) it is said that the non-official members of the Advisory Councial of the Chief Commissioner etc. There is no official at all. Therefore, if it is not necessary, this word ‘non-official’ may be dropped. I am suggesting it to the Mover. Dr. Ambedkar : It cannot do any harm. Shri M. A. Ayyangar : ……… Then under section 134 rules were framed. When the Government of India Act was repealed an Ordinance was issued defining who were ‘officials’ and who were ‘non-officials’. This Ordinance has lapsed. What is the present position ? If in 1919 they were defined and later on under the Ordinance also it was found necessary to define the words, why should we not define it here also ? That lacuna must be made up. It is not such a simple term that it can be found in a dictionary. It will depend upon the interpretation that is put on it. It is a very valid objection. Dr. Ambedkar : I am sure the matter is covered. If it is not covered it is not difficult to cover it. * P. D., Vol. 7, Part II, 22nd December 1950, pp. 2264-65,. **Ibid., pp. 2269.

238 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES * Mr. Speaker : Then comes addition of Part IV. 27A is proposed to be added. Dr. Ambedkar : I would like to move an amendment to 10B. I beg to move : In the proposed new clause 10B of the Bill, in the proposed section 27A of the representation of the People Act, 1950, for the words “Tripura and Manipur” substitute the words “Manipur and Tripura.” The motion was adopted. Mr. Speaker : The hon. Members will remember that out of the five amendments moved this morning by Dr. Ambedkar, three related to 27A which have been carried by this House. I find that nobody wishes to move any of the amendments or make any speech further. So I shall come to all the clauses together, because I find that other amendments are only verbal. Does any hon. Member wish to address himself to any particular clause now? No. Then I will put all the clauses— 27–D, E, F, G, H, I, …………. Dr. Ambedkar : With regard to 27-I, Sir, with your permission I would like to move a small amendment to subclause (2), like the one I had moved earlier, namely, instead of Tripura and Manipur, it should be Manipur and Tripura. *Mr. Speaker : Then there is a further amendment proposed by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is : “That the necessary corrections for the numbering and lettering of the clauses in the Bill and of the sections inserted by the Bill be carried out together with consequential corrections of cross references.” The motion was adopted. Clause 1 was added to the Bill. The Title and the Enacting Formula were added to the Bill. * P. D., Vol. 7, Part II, 22nd December 1950, pp. 2271.