Vol. 15 · pages 506–510

489PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES the Bill. The difficulty then will be that we shall have to amend this legislation. Therefore, since a specific formula is already provided in the Constitution itself, it is not open to this Parliament to change that formula. It is for the Election Commissioner to find out at any particular time as to how many reserved seats there shall be in the House of the People in relation to any particular State in Part A, B or C. Therefore, I submit that sub-clause (1) of the proposed section 3A is against the Constitution and is also unnecessary. Mr. Speaker: Amendment moved : In clause 2, for the proposed section 3A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, substitute: “ 3A. For the purposes of reserving seats in the House of the People under the Constitution of India, the castes specified in the Sixth schedule shall be the scheduled castes in relation to the Part C State under which they are so specified, and the tribes specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be the scheduled tribes in relation to the Part C State under which they are so specified. ” The Minister of State for Transport and Railways (Shri Santhanam): Does my hon. Friend suggest that without a Parliamentary enactment the Election Commissioner can give a specific number of seats to any specific State? It will have to be done by Parliament. Mr. Speaker: The point, as I have been able to understand, is that the necessary directive having already been given by article 330 that representation shall be in proportion to the population, the Election Commissioner has already got the direction and it is for him to work it out, not for this House to lay down exactly what number of seats they will give to each State........ Shri Santhanam: Sir, if I understand, it correctly, the directive is to Parliament and not to the Election Commissioner. Because the actual number of seats have to be laid down by Parliament—the Election Commissioner cannot fix the numbers. Dr. Ambedkar: The specific article is 82 which deals with the representation in the House of the People. It says : “Notwithstanding anything in clause (1) of article 31, Parliament may by law provide for the representation in the House of the People of any

490 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES State specified in Part C of the First schedule or of any territories comprised within the territory of India but not included within any State on a basis or in a manner other than that provided in that clause.” We knew that the same principle could not be applied to Part C States and therefore a special article had been made. Shri J. R. Kapoor : May I submit that article 82 has no relation to article 341? Article 82 says that so far as Part C States are concerned, the basis of representation in the House of the People, as specifically mentioned in article 81 in relation to Part A and Part B states, may be varied. Under article 81 the basis of representation is one representative for every five to 7 1/2 lakh persons. Article 81 does not refer to reservation of seats at all. Under the cover of article 82 this Parliament cannot take to itself the right of overriding the specific provision of article 330. As you rightly pointed out, Sir, under article 330 the direction has already been specifically given obviously to the Election Commissioner to do a little arithmetical calculation. It is merely a little arithmetical calculation and for that the Constitution-makers did not think that Parliament should be troubled. It is a little arithmetical calculation which can be done by the Election Commissioner and it is not open to the Parliament to make even a slight variation this way or that way. Shri Santhanam : If you will kindly refer to article 81 (2) and (3) you will find, Sir, that all adjustments have to be made by Parliament by law. Upon the completion of each census, the representation of the several constituencies shall be decided by Parliament by law. The Election Commissioner cannot by notification allocate seats in Parliament. Shri J. R. Kapoor: I readily agree with the proposition just now enunciated by my hon. friend Mr. Santhanam and even this time we have already passed one Representation of the People Bill. But the point we are now considering is not as to how many persons from a particular State shall be elected to the House of the People. We have already done that and we are not going to amend it, and even if we want to, we have to have a separate amending Bill for that. But all that we are considering now is this: Out of the total number

491PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of seats which we have already fixed for representatives from Part C States, how many shall be reserved for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes ? That is the proposition that we are considering at present and not the bigger and the general proposition of the number of seats to be given to a particular State. The limited question is how many seats are to be reserved for the scheduled tribes and scheduled castes, and for that my submission is that we have not got to pass any legislation. The directive is given under article 330 (2) and it is only the Election Commissioner’s business to make a little mathematical calculation from time to time (a) to find out how many scheduled castes and tribes there are and (b) on the basis of their number, to determine how many out of the total seats shall be reserved for them. For this, it is not only unnecessary but it is against the specific provisions of the Constitution to have the proposed section 3A. Therefore, it must be deleted. Since this is obviously against the Constitution, I have raised this question. I request that the House may not be pleased to accept sub-clause (1) of the proposed Section 3A but it may be pleased to accept only sub-clause (2) and that too in the form in which my amendment stands. One word more and I have done. If it be the contention of the Hon. Minister that it is not provided in the Constitution that seats shall be reserved in the House of the People for Part C states, then I am afraid we cannot make any such provision here, because the House of the People must be constituted strictly in accordance with the specific provisions of the Constitution. I take my stand on the plea that it is already provided for in the Constitution, but if the contention of the Hon. Minister is otherwise, then it is a very risky one and in that event we must hold that it is not open to Parliament to say anything with regard to the composition or constitution of the House of the People. It may be a lacuna in the Constitution, or it may have been left over by oversight or deliberately. But if the contention of the Hon. Minister be that there is no provision in the Constitution itself providing for the reservation of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, then we cannot help it. My own view is that provision already exists. Therefore, in order that he may not run such

492 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a risk and in order that this question may not crop up before the Supreme Court and be contested there, I would submit that the House should accept my contention and be content with accepting my amendment. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay: While making my submission in the morning, I had not gone into minute details, but after hearing so many speeches on the same point, I hope you might have seen that the position taken by the hon. Minister is not a sound one as far as the specification of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes list is concerned, because this list could be prepared only by the President. Dr. Ambedkar: No. I definitely deny that. He has no power to do that. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay : Under article 341 it is the President who is authorised to prepare a list of these scheduled tribes and castes in consultation with the Governor or Rajpramukh concerned and that list has been prepared by the President and been published in the Gazette in respect of Part A and Part B States. But there is no list for Part C States. If there is no provision under which the President could prepare a list for Part C states, then I do not think that there is any other provision under which that list could be prepared by this House. Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to go to the logical length that because no powers are specifically provided for Parliament preparing a list of scheduled castes, therefore in States other than Part A and part B there can be no recognition of scheduled castes? Is that his position? Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay: Yes. In article 330 general direction has been given and it is that according to the population of the scheduled castes and tribes the seats shall be allotted and after the allotment of seats and the delimitation of constituencies by the Election Commissioner... Mr. Speaker: Let us leave aside the delimitation at this stage. Let us try to determine what the scheduled castes are. The other point will be the one raised by Mr. Kapoor. So, let us be clear on that point first.

493PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay: My submission is that there is no such provision except the one contained in article 341 where the specification of scheduled tribes and castes are mentioned in the Constitution. In the list prepared by the President in consultation with the Rajpramukh or the Governor concerned had been brought before Parliament for amendment saying that such and such castes should be added in the list for Part C States that would have been understandable ; otherwise, there is no authority vested in Parliament to have an independent Bill for providing lists of these castes for Part C States. This is my contention, unless of course my hon. friend can point out any provision in the Constitution under which he thinks that this House is authorised to have an independent list of castes and tribes on the basis of which these seats could be allotted to Part C States. 4-00 P .M. Dr. Ambedkar: I will deal first with Mr. Kapoor’s point— his amendment. He has all the time been relying on article 330 where provision for scheduled caste representation is made. His contention—if I have understood him correctly—is that that provision is sufficient not only for Part A and Part B, but also for Part C States. That is the only difference between us. My point is that a separate provision such as the one contained in the Bill is necessary : his contention is that it is unnecessary, because it is covered by article 330. I believe I have represented him correctly. That is the point . The submission that I propose to make in favour of the course that I am following by bringing forth this Bill is just this. There is a definition of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in article 366 of the Constitution. Clause (24) of article 366 reads thus: “ ‘Scheduled Castes’ means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this constitution.” Now. it may be open to contention that the “Scheduled Castes” referred to in article 330 are “Scheduled Castes” as defined in clause (24) of article 366. Scheduled Castes in Part C States cannot be said to be Scheduled Castes within the meaning of that clause.