Vol. 15 · pages 536–540

519PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES is correct, it is not necessary for us to introduce any kind of clause in this Bill at all, because the Constitution itself lays down in article 102 that holders of offices of profit shall not be eligible for being Members of Parliament. If his contention is that they are holders of office of profit, they automatically come under article 102 of the Constitution. It has laid down this disqualification which this Parliament can neither amend nor enlarge. The only thing he can do is to act under article 103 which says that if any person who is a holder of an office of profit is a Member of Parliament, the matter may be referred to the President and the President shall after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission, give his decision according to such opinion. To take a concrete case, suppose any particular prince—I think they call them princes—is elected to this House or to any Chamber of the State Legislature, all that is necessary to do, if my friend is correct, is to apply to the President saying that he is a disqualified person and so cannot take a seat in Parliament. Therefore, on his own argument it is unnecessary to introduce any clause for the purpose in this Bill. It is for him to say whether his contention that they are holders of offices of profit is correct or incorrect. On that subject I do not propose to express any opinion now. Shri Sidhva: They get a sort of pension. Dr. Ambedkar: There is vast difference between pensionholders and these cases. Shri Hussain Imam (Bihar): What about Government pensioners? Are they holding offices of profit ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not wish to be dragged into this aspect of the matter. The point is very simple. The question is whether if they are holders of offices of profit, they are disqualified. If that be so, the disqualification is there under article 102. You have only to refer to the provisions of article 102 and get the person removed from Parliament. Shri Raj Bahadur: It is a case for the lawyers again. Dr. Ambedkar: Why not? The hon. Member is himself a lawyer. Why should he shut himself out?

520 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Shyamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): Cannot the matter be raised before the Election Commission ? Dr. Ambedkar : It is unnecessary to go to that length; The remedy is very simple, as I have already explained. Well, then. If my friend’s contention is that the holding of an office of profit is not a good ground for disqualifying them, then the House in enacting a provision for disqualifying them, must, of course, have some justification. Referring, for instance, to the composition of the House of Commons it may be pointed out that the clergy of England are disqualified for being members of the House of Commons. Similarly a person holding a peerage which entitles him to sit in the House of Lords is a disqualification for being a Member of the House of Commons. Now, in both these cases there is ample justification why they are disqualified. If my friend were to study the history of the case, he will know that the clergy were disqualified by the Act of 1801 because it was felt that under the Protestant Revolution when the State became the head of the Church or when the Church and the State became one—what are called allow-sons—that is to say, churches where service is offered and payments made, these became a sort of gift in the hands of the State and consequently it was felt that churchmen and priests were holders of offices of profit and therefore they must be disqualified. With regard to members of the House of Lords being disqualified from being members of the House of Commons, there again the justification is quite obvious, namely that a person cannot be a member of two Houses. This is the principle which we have also embodied. Therefore the disqualification of these two classes of people, although it exists in England is founded on the two justifications which I have given. If my friend could suggest some justification other than the ground of office of profit, it would be open to consider whether such a justification is valid here, Dr. Parmar (Himachal Pardesh): Can the Princes not be excluded on the ground that they are political pensioners ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know why political pensions should be regarded a disqualification. Of course, as

521PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES hon. Members know, Dr. Johnson, the author of the first English Dictionary, defined a political pensioner as a slave of the Government. But he himself subsequently accepted a pension from Government. It is no use being too logical. Dr. Parmar: Are political pensioners debarred from the House of Commons ? Dr. Ambedkar : No, only Peers and lunatics, as they used to say in the days of the Reforms. The third point raised in the Minutes of Dissent relates to the reservation of seats to the Scheduled Castes in doublemember constituencies. This point is dealt with at considerable length by Mr. Sarangdhar Das and Mr. Rama Rao. It seems to me that this matter has already been concluded by the Representation of the People Act of 1950 which this House passed last year. A reference to section 6, sub-section (2), clause ( d) of that Act would show that the House left this matter for the President to decide in an appropriate case. I therefore, do not think that we can do anything now, unless we go back and amend that Act. Apart from that, I should like to draw the attention of the House to certain considerations which have prevailed upon the Government in making the sort of reservations which have been made. I think it necessary to draw a distinction between what may be called a reserved constituency and a constituency in which a seat is reserved. I think these are two very different things and the question that has to be considered is what was the intention, whether it was to adopt the system of a reserved constituency or a system of a constituency in which a seat is reserved. There again, it seems to me, if you refer to the intentions of the Constituent Assembly, the matter is more or less concluded. The first point is this. Our friends will remember—I shall refer to it presently that the Constituent Assembly passed a Resolution in favour of what is called distributive voting. Now, my submission is this. Would there have been any necessity to pass a Resolution regarding distributive voting unless it was the intention of the Constituent Assembly that the constituency should be one in which a seat is reserved ? If the intention was that it should

522 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES be a reserved constituency, no such question would have arisen, because the system of one man one vote would have applied. Secondly, although the Constitution does not expressly make any reference to this matter, the intention of the makers of the Constitution and of the Constituent Assembly appears to be clear by a reference to article 332, clause (5). My friend Mr. Chaliha must be very familiar with that article. The House will recall that a contention was raised whether a constituency should be reserved for the tribal area so that in that area only a tribal candidate would stand. On the other side the question was raised that if a constituency was so framed that only a tribal candidate could stand, the rest of the non-tribal people would be completely disfranchised. And that was not a desirable thing, the Assembly decided. Consequently in passing article 332(5) they made the special provision that if such a thing was to be done, then certain areas in which the non-tribal people were concentrated should be separated and given separate representation. I therefore concludes, from the fact that the Constituent Assembly supported distributive voting and from the fact that there is a provision in article 332, clause (5), that the intention of the Constituent Assembly was that the system to be ordinarily adopted is the system of a seat being reserved in a constituency. It was on this construction of these provisions that the Representation of the People Act, 1950, contained the provision which is embodied in section 6, sub-section (2), clause ( d). With regard to the question of distributive voting, there again both my friends Pandit Kunzru and Mr. Das have expatiated at considerable length in the vicious character of this system. As I said, it is quite open to argue that the cumulative system is better in that it enables minorities, social or political, to muster their strength and have their representative elected to the House. As I said just now, we have not got a clean slate to act upon. As my friend will remember this matter was discussed in the Constituent Assembly and a motion was moved by no less a person than the late Sardar Patel, in which he proposed that all special representation for all minorities, such as the Muslims,

523PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Christians and so on, shall be abolished and that they shall be retained only for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, and wherever a seat is reserved in a constituency for these two classes the system of voting shall be distributive voting. That resolution was accepted by the Constituent Assembly. No doubt there was a certain amount of debate on that question but ultimately the decision of the Assembly was in favour of distributive voting. It seems to me that our Parliament must pay some special regard to the decisions of the Constituent Assembly, because, after all, it is from the Constituent Assembly that we have derived our power and authority. Certain decisions taken by the Constituent Assembly we have got in our Constitution, certain others which we could not embody in our Constitution remain outstanding. It does not mean that because we have not embodied those decisions in the Constitution we are not to pay any regard to them. Therefore it seems to me that whatever may be the view-point on the subject—I do not deny that there is some validity in the contention of the other side—I think personally that the matter must be regarded as concluded. It would of course be open to the House to take any step they like, if as a result of experience in the next or subsequent elections they find that the system is not a good one and ought to be substituted. But for the moment the decision of the Constituent Assembly must stand. The fifth point raised is the declaration of the results. That is also raised by my Friend Mr. Sarangdhar Das. If I understand him correctly—he will correct me if I am wrong, for it is not quite clear to me—what he wants is that the results of the election should not be announced piecemeal, constituency by constituency, or province by province, but that all results should be announced on the same day. I take it that he has no objection to counting the votes piecemeal, constituency by constituency, and making the record of it complete. There is a difference between counting and announcing……….. Shri Gautam (Uttar Pradesh): Counting is done in the presence of the candidate. Dr. Ambedkar : Yes, of course. Those provisions are there. The only question is as you finish your counting for the