Vol. 15 · pages 401–405

384 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: Well, I am prepared to accept yours, if you like. I do not think any further reply is necessary from me if the House is satisfied with the deletion of the words “or of the Supreme Court”. Mr. Chairman: I shall now put the amendments to the House. (Prof. Shah’s amendment was negatived.) *Mr. Chairman: The next is seeking to omit the words “or of the Supreme Court”. It is the same amendment that Dr. Ambedkar has proposed. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: It is exactly the same. Shri Kamath: But I have moved it and Prof. Shah has also moved it. Mr. Chairman: The amendment is there and I am bound to put it to the House. An hon. Member: It may be withdrawn. Prof. K. T. Shah: Why should I withdraw it ? Mr. Chairman: The qustion is: In page 4, lines 8 and 9, omit “or of the Supreme Court”. The motion was adopted. Mr. Chairman: The question is : In page 4, after line 9, add: “Provided that such Chief Justice or other Judge of a High Court shall acquire citizenship of India within three months of such appointment; and provided that no one who is not a natural born citizen of India shall be appointed Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court of India.” The motion was adopted. ** Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: This, as the Prime Minister has said, is a consequential change. Apparently, it refers to the Hyderabad Regulations which the House incorporated on an * P. D., Vol 12, Part II, 2nd June 1951, p. 10024. **Ibid., pp. 10035-36.

385PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES amendment moved on the floor of the House. What about the last part of the clause ? It says : “………each of the said Acts (and Regulations, if this is accepted) shall, subject to the power of any competent legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.” So far as .these Regulations are concerned, they cannot be repealed or amended by any Legislature when there is no Legislature in Hyderabad. There also, it should be altered by saying ‘legislature or other competent authority’. Dr. Ambedkar: Whatever legislature there is, it will have the right to amend. Mr. Speaker: There is confusion about the meaning of the word * legislature’. A legislature is conceived as consisting of a Chamber with elected representatives and so on. I believe the legislature here means, the Rajpramukh who is himself the legislature. That I think is the constitutional meaning. Dr. Ambedkar: Yes. Mr. Speaker: If that is so, there is no difficulty. The question is : In page 2, (i) line 35, after “Acts” insert “and Regulations”. (ii) line 36, after “Acts” insert “and Regulations”. (iii) line 39, after “Acts” insert “Regulations”. (iv) line 42, after “Acts” insert “Regulations”. The motion was adopted. Shri Kamath: Is it not necessary to put this clause, as amended, to the House ? Mr. Speaker: Is it really necessary ? The position will be like this. “That the Bill, as amended, be passed” will be the motion I am going to put to the House. There is no particular clause again to be put to the House. The hon. Member will note that clause 5 was voted upon and the House has assented to it. Votes were taken separately on that clause. This amendment comes in as a consequential amendment. Mr. Speaker: Under rule 94.

386 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: It is for you to consider this. With regard to clauses, you have ruled deliberately for the sake of safety that every clause should be put separately and the votes of two-thirds of the Members present and voting should be recorded. Now, clause 5 has been passed in accordance with that direction. Now, we are amending clause 5. Is it not desirable and safe that clause 5, as amended, should be put separately and votes recorded ? Mr. Speaker: That would be an irregular procedure. That clause, in the clause by clause consideration at the second reading, has been already accepted by the House. The proposition before the House is that the entire Bill, as amended, be passed. The amendment is merely a consequential or verbal amendment, which is permissible at this stage. No substantial amendment is permissible at this stage.

387PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Orissa Order * Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move : [For text of the motions see Appendix XXXIII, annexure 1] West Bengal Order Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: [For text of the motions see Appendix XXXIII, annexure 1] Madhya Pradesh Order **Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: [For text of the motions see Appendix XXXIII, annexure 1] Rajasthan Order Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move : [For text of the motions see Appendix XXXIII, annexure 1] PART C STATES ORDER *** Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: [For text of the motions see Appendix XXXIII, annexure 1. **** REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NO. 2) BILL—contd. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): Sir, with your permission, I would like to move certain formula and consequential amendments to the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill as it has emerged from the second reading. I beg to move : “That the Bill, as amended, be passed.” Mr. Chairman : Motion moved : “That the Bill as amended, be passed.” Shri Kamath (Madhya Pradesh): Before the Law Minister proceeds to move these amednments may I remind you of what I requested the hon. Speaker yesterday that this House is *P. D., Vol 12, Part II, 4th June 1951, p. 10110. **Ibid., p. 10111. ***Ibid., p. 10112. ****Ibid., 5th June 1951, pp. 10202-03.

388 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES entitiled to have notice of amednments. I must record my protest against this in the most emphatic terms that these lists of amendments were received not even last night but only this morning at about seven O’Clock—just an hour before we left home for Parliament. I feel that in the circumstances the Law Minister may put of moving his amendments till tomorrow and that Members be given adequate time to scrutinize and examine the amendments and to give notice of any amendments to these amendments I must request you to hold that these amendments have come very late and House must be given at least a day for examining the amendments and for submitting amendments to them. Shri J. R. Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh): I associate myself with the suggestion made by Shri Kamath that as these amendments have been sent to us this morning, we might be given some reasonable time to see whether in our opinion they fit in with the scope and object of the Bill. I do not mean to raise any technical objection. I am never in that habit…………. Shri Kamath: Mine was not a technical objection either. Shri J. R. Kapoor: Therefore, I am associating with Shri Kamath’s suggestion. We are very particular about this Bill and are anxious to see that no amendemnt—even though it might have been carefully looked into by the hon. Law Minister—should be allowed to be incorporated in the Bill unless we have had a reasonable opportunity of analysing it. Dr. Deshmukh (Madhya Pradesh): I think the suggestion made is quite reasonable and I hope that you will be pleased to accept it……. Under those circumstances, it is but fair that hon. Members of this House should have an opportunity of seeing what consequential amendments are proposed and if there is any necessity for the same. They should have a fair opportunity of giving notice of any amendments they wish to move. There are many other measures that can be taken up today. Mr. Chairman: I would like to know the reaction of the Hon. Law Minister.