Vol. 15 · pages 561–565

544 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : I should have thought that that was quite outside the scope of this Bill. That matter will be debated when the President’s Order will be placed before the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think it is the hon. Member’s desire to go into the details of the delimitation question. The President’s Order is yet to issue and will be placed before the House, when it can be discussed. But if in a general manner the hon. Member wants to show that because large powers are given to the Election Commission greater care must be taken by that Commission, then he would be quite in order. Shri Alagesan: I think I can make a reference as to how the Election Commission has proceeded with its work so far. Dr. Deshmukh : The hon. Member wants to show how the Election Commission has worked so far. He is quite in order. Dr. Ambedkar: That may be debated when we take up the actual Order of the President delimiting constituencies. *Shri P. Y. Deshpande : ...... The fact is that everybody has the right to vote and stand as a candidate. What power is left in us now, without changing the Constitution, to limit that right of any person to offer himself as a candidate for election ? He may be a Raja or an ex-Raja. If the people want him, let them elect him. Having given this right to every one, why should we now fight shy of that ? The Rajas of even black-marketeers, whatever men there are in society, if the people choose them, that would be their verdict; right or wrong, evil or good. If you want to limit that verdict, then change the Constitution first and then you can limit it. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : The Constitution empowers this House to prescribe qualifications. Shri P. Y. Deshpande: You have not done that, so far. Dr. Ambedkar: We are now doing that. *P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 10th May 1951, p. 8491.

545PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Deputy Speaker: Why should persons who have undergone imprisonment for more than two years be disqualified ? Shri P. Y. Deshpande: That is true. I would even allow a criminal to stand as a candidate. I appreciate the case of the criminal. But, if you take a fundamental stand that every adult has the right to vote and stand as a candidate for the elections, if that is your concept of democracy, then, if the criminal has the courage to stand, the people will defeat him if they do not want a criminal. If a Raja wants to stand and if the people do not want him, the people will defeat him. The right to defeat these persons is vested in the people. * Shri Ghule: ......I think, elections, big and small have been held in this country but it is difficult to make any distinction between the meetings held for the propagation of political doctrines and those for the personal canvassing of the candidate. Dr. Ambedkar: I might inform the hon. Member that there is absolutely nothing new in clause 124, which has been bodily copied from the existing rules, which he will find in the Corrupt Practices and Election Practices Order, First Schedule, Part III. It has been there since 1919. Shri Ghule : Quite right, I was just thinking that as this clause connotes a wide conception, it should have been included in the previous Act, and as you say, it was included. In spite of this law, Congressmen and other Members fought the previous elections while propagating the political doctrines to which they subscribed and at the same time canvassed votes in the constituencies from which they stood, but I have not come across any such instance in which the tribunals in India have declared any of the elections invalid on this ground. Therefore, as I was saying that I was not disturbed in the least to read the note of dissent of Shri Goenka but after having listened to the speech of Hon. Dr. Ambedkar I feel *P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 11th May 1951, p. 8534.

546 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES perturbed. As Hon. Dr. Ambedkar has said that this law was in force previously as well and in spite of it Congressmen, Socialists and Communists etc. in our country propagated their political doctrines and at the same time canvassed votes for their respective candidates as well, then what emergency has arisen today ? It will be better if Hon. Dr. Ambedkar clarifies the position during his reply to the Debate. * Shri Venkataraman : ...... There is another thing which I do not understand. In clause 3 of the Bill it is laid down that a candidate to the Council of States should be a resident of the State concerned, but a candidate to the House of the People need be resident only in any Parliamentary Constituency in the country. I fail to see any reason for this distinction between the two. If there is any I hope the Hon. Minister of Law will clarify the position and tell us the reason why this distinction has been laid down, Clause 3 says : “A person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative ...... in the council of States unless he is an elector for a Parliamentary Constituency in that State...” Shri Syamanandan Sahaya (Bihar): Because it is the Council of the States. Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, that is the reason. And the other is the House of the People. Shri Venkataraman: But a person belonging to a particular State may be resident in another place and he should not be disqualified from standing as a candidate because he is not resident in that State. Take, Sir, your own case. You have become a resident in Delhi and so you will not be able to stand for election in your own State, since you are not enrolled in that constituency. Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I am not in touch with my constituency, why should I stand as their candidate ? Shri Venkataraman: Sir, as I said, this point has to be considered. *P.D., Vol. 11, Part II, 11th May 1951, pp. 8574-75.

547PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES *Shri Venkataraman: ......A party cannot go and do propaganda saying, “Vote for Congress, vote for Liberal Party or vote for Labour Party”, without stating who is standing as a candidate of the party concerned. But the moment that information is given it becomes an illegal practice. Even if there is a precedent the time has come when it should be changed. Prof. Ranga (Madras) : What is the position in England ? Dr. Ambedkar: It is the same as in the Bill—there is no departure. Shri Venkataraman: Again in sub-clause ( 3) of clause 124 you have said that the issuing of any circular, placard or poster having a reference to the election which does not bear on its face the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof, will become an illegal practice. The easiest thing for an opponent to do is to issue a circular on behalf of his opponent, without the name of the printing press and this man would be disqualified. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless the candidate is a party to it he will not be disqualified. *Prof. Ranga: ...... So far as the Chairmanship of the Tribunal is concerned I would like to suggest that to think of making a district judge the Chairman is really not reasonable. No one enjoying a lower status than that of a High Court Judge should ever be appointed as the Chairman of the Tribunal. Dr. Ambedkar: You cannot get so many High Court Judges. Prof. Ranga: You do not have so many Tribunals either. Dr. Ambedkar: You do not know how many petitions there will be. *P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 11th May 1951, p. 8578. **Ibid., p. 8611.

548 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Prof. Ranga: Then, there should be a maximum limit for election expenses. I do not think it is advisable to leave it to be prescribed later on by rules. And in making these rules I hope that it is only the Union Government which will be entrusted with this responsibility and not the State Governments. Even in this connection I do suggest for the consideration of the Law Minister that this power might be left with the President to be exercised on the advice of his Election Commissioner. *R. K. Chaudhari : ...... Take for instance, the provision regarding conveyance. If this rule had been applied severely before all the elections that had taken place hitherto in India would have been nullified. But today we turn our back and strive our utmost to fill gaps and impose severe penalties on wrong-dores at election time. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari. An hon. Member: This is zabardasti. Dr. Ambedkar: You want women to be disqualified ? Shri R. K. Chaudhari: The first point that I wish to speak about is about disqualifications as laid down in clause 7. More than one speaker before me have spoken on it and I would only add a few arguments for the complete deletion of sub-clause (d) of clause 7. **Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wish to give hon. Members ten minutes only, and I intend to call upon the Hon. Minister at five minutes to one. Dr. Ambedkar: The arrangement as I understood in the morning was that I should reply on Monday morning. Dr. Deshmukh : ......These are points which are accepted by most of the Members of this House and I hope on account *P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 12th May 1951, p. 8632. **Ibid., pp. 8639-40.