Vol. 15 · pages 556–560

539PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES It will be very difficult for the officers concerned to make a distinction whether a particular flag has got the Asoka Chakra or the Charkha on it. Dr. Ambedkar: I think the two are perfectly distinguishable. * Dr. C. D. Pande : ......Dr. Ambedkar said that he found no difficulty in filling the election expense returns because election expenses means expenses incurred for the election, that is, after the nomination. The question was put whether pre-nomination expenses were included there or not. He said it depends, because if you have announced your candidature from that date it will be incumbent upon you to fill it in the returns. I think it will be very very difficult and dangerous to give such wide ranges and to give new definitions for the election expenses and for the nomination expenses—to make that distinction between the two stages, that is, nomination expenses and election expenses. Dr. Ambedkar: I did not make any such distinction. Dr. C. D. Pande: You said that election expenses do not mean the expenses incurred before the nomination is valid, that is to say, the expenses up to the date of validation of the nomination should not be included. But so far as the terminology goes it includes all the expenses incurred on the election, whether before or after nomination. Dr. Ram Subhag Singh (Bihar): Not before nomination. Dr. C. D. Pande: Why not ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is the judicial interpretation according to the Hon. Minister. Dr. C. D. Pande : I myself have experience of filing election returns. There are expenses for instance of getting the voters list has to be included. Dr. Ambedkar: That is right. But you do not want all the registers. All that is necessary is a certified entry. It will not cost you more than two pence. *P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 10th May 1951, pp. 8469-71.

540 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. C. D. Pande: What I want to make out is that the demarcation between nomination expenses and election expenses has not been observed so far, but it may be done in the future. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Evidently the hon. Member is suggesting that there should be an explanation. Dr. Ambedkar: All that he is suggesting is that there ought to be no such rule as presenting the election expense return and that a candidate should be able to spend any amount according to his capacity. Dr. C. D. Pande: I do not wish to restrict the amount, it is a matter of practical difficulty when election returns are filed—whether pre-nomination expenses will be included or not, whether election expenses will be included or not, whether election expenses mean only the expenses incurred after nomination and up to the end of polling. If that is so this is a new meaning given to election expenses. That is what I want to say.... Then I want to suggest one thing and that is about withdrawal. You have said therein that nobody should be asked lawfully to withdraw from standing. So many dummy candidates are set up by parties and they are asked to withdraw. Either you say that this jargon has not got any meaning, or if it has a meaning it must be made clear and there should be no loopholes. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The language seems to be quite clear. Dr. Ambedkar: The Select Committee certainly did not find any difficulty in understanding it. Dr. C. D. Pande : Clause 122 (1)(a) says “a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate at an election.” Mr. Deputy Speaker: The earlier portion ought to be read along with that, namely, “Bribery that is to say, any gift, offer or promise by a candidate with the object of inducing” etc.

541PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. C. D. Pande: Suppose I suggest to a candidate that he should not stand for the Assembly because he has a better chance to be taken up in the Upper House. Does it amount to corrupt practice ? It does as far as I read the provision. Dr. Ambedkar: It does not come under sub-clause (1). You are offering him better and surer prospects. Dr. C. D. Pande: Does it not come within this provision ? Dr. Ambedkar : You can go on doing your manipulations. Dr. C. D. Pande : They are necessary and we should not be ashamed of them because a party cannot be run without them. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Punjab): I think it would come within the mischief of the clause. Dr. C. D. Pande: I would very respectfully submit to Dr. Ambedkar that there are situations that have to be met in practical life and you cannot do away with the difficulties you find. We would have left this language as it is had we not the apprehension that in future all the elections will be questioned and in all the elections the basest material of human nature will come out to upset things and the courts and lawyers will conspire to do their best to undo what has been done by the franchise. To my mind, if a man secures the majority votes that is the highest tribunal for the final decision for his being elected. Dr. Deshmukh: Lawyers will be available to conspire against that also. Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the other hand, is there no danger of a proper candidate who is liked by the constituency being forced, by illegal gratifications offered, to withdraw his candidature after the nomination is filed ? Dr. C. D. Pande: But it remains to be decided whether a promise to set up that person for the Upper. Chamber instead of the Assembly amounts to corrupt practice or not. Hon. Members: No. Dr. C. D. Pande: These words do not indicate that.

542 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think these doubts may better be cleared when the clauses are discussed. *Shri Raj Bahadur: ......This brings me to my point and my minute of dissent that I have appended to the Report of the Select Committee. Yesterday, Dr. Ambedkar pointed out that a clause disqualifying the Rulers or all those persons who get some fixed allowances, salaries and pensions from the Consolidated Fund of India is not necessary at all. He invited our attention to the provisions of articles 102 and 103 and said that in case there is any Member against whom an objection is taken on this score, the remedy lies in appealing to the President. I would request the Hon. Minister to listen to me because he wanted me to give him the justification for asking him to include a clause to that effect. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member invites the attention of the Hon. Minister, particularly about the Princes, how far they hold offices of profit etc. The hon. Member wants to impress his arguments on the Hon. Minister. Dr. Ambedkar: I am sorry, another hon. Member was asking some questions about this. Shri J. R, Kapoor: Are all pensioners in India disqualified ? Shri Raj Bahadur: There are amendments to that effect also. Therefore, to sum up my objection is that these are a privileged class and they should be ineligible to contest the elections. My objection does not proceed on mere legal or constitutional grounds. It is much more fundamental. I am not at all for a moment afraid of their entering the election contest with any of us in Part B States. So far as we are concerned we should like the common man to rub shoulders with the highest. But the position is that when they come into the election contest we will have to say things...... Mr. Deputy Speaker: If he holds an office of profit under article 102 he is disqualified for being chosen. *P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 10th May 1951, p. 8477.

543PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar: So the remedy is there. Shri Raj Bahadur : But Dr. Ambedkar is not at all clear. Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has to be decided only by the President. That point may be disputed also in a court of law. If the Prince is not disqualified under the Constitution how can he be disqualified by this law ? Is it not a Fundamental Right, even if he does not come under article 102 ? *Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member evidently means that under clause ( e), “if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament”. It is open to Parliament to make a law. Dr. Ambedkar: He must show some justification. Shri Raj Bahadur: The justification is that he would overpower the common man. The justification is that in the U.K. the Lords were not allowed to contest seats in the House of Commons, because they would try to perpetuate vested interests and interfere with the rights of the common man. Similarly if you allow these people whose position is analogus to that of the Lords in U.K. they will interfere with the affairs of the common man and will side with reaction and prove impediments to the progress of the country. ** Shri Alagesan : ......But I should like to utter a warning here about the conception of independence by the Election Commission. This independence is meant to hold the scales even between various political parties that compete for power. The Commission has to see that one political party does not get any undue advantage over another. The independence of the Election Commission does not mean that it should cause inconvenience to all parties impartially. Here I should like to refer to the work of delimitation of constituencies for Parliament as well as the State Legislatures. *P.D. Vol. 11, Part II, 10th May 1951, p. 8482. **Ibid., p. 8485.