Vol. 15 · pages 566–570

549PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of the substantial degree of unanimity they will all be accepted by the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, as you were pleased to remark when the discussion of my motion started, that as there was hardly any principle running throughout this Bill and that each clause stood on its own merits, the proper thing would be to devote more attention to each clause as and when it comes before the House, and I do not think that I need take much time in discussing the points which have been raised in the course of this debate. I know that many Members, if they at all feel very serious about the comments that they have made, will undoubtedly take care either to express their point of view when the clause is put before the House and if they have any difficulty I certainly would deal with that matter in order to remove the difficulty, or they will take the course of moving proper amendments to get their point of view discussed in the House and by carrying conviction to the House. That being so, it is not necessary for me to deal at great length with the various points that have arisen. I therefore, propose to be somewhat brief and to touch upon only those points which may not arise again in the course of the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is the Hon. Minister likely to take some time ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then the House stands adjourned till 8-30 A.M. on Monday. The House then adjourned till Half Past Eight of the clock on Monday, the 14th May 1951. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL— contd. * Mr. Speaker: The House will now proceed with the further consideration of the motion moved by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on the 9th May regarding the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill. * P. D. Vol. 11, Part II, 14th May 1951, pp. 8650-57.

550 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): On Saturday last when I entered upon the reply to the general debate on my motion, I said that although a great many points were raised by those who spoke on my motion there were some which were actually covered by amendments and that it was, therefore, unnecessary in the course of the reply to deal with those points because I felt that a better reply could be given when the motions are moved, and I said that I would therefore, confine myself to such points as were made in the course of the debate which were not covered by any amendment. On going over the amendments I found that there are only three points which are of some substance which were made at which I do not find having been made the subject of any specific amendment. It is therefore to these points that I propose to confine myself. The first such point was made by Babu Ramnarayan Singh and also by my friend, Prof. Ranga. Both of them complained that according to their experience and information the Ministers of the Governments in various Provinces and States were taking very active part in the election campaign and that they were exercising their authority and their influence in order to serve their own political interests or the interests of the party to which they belonged, and that this kind of a misuse of authority and influence was calculated to result in unfair practice against those who did not belong to their persuasion. The suggestion that they made was that there ought to be a provision in this law calling upon Ministers to resign their offices some time before the actual election commenced. It seems to me that this suggestion has not been examined properly either by my friend Babu Ramnarayan Singh, or by Prof. Ranga, because I have no doubt about it that if they do examine the feasibility of giving effect to such a proposal they will find that it would be more or less imposible to give effect to it. In this connection I would like to point out the provision contained in our Constitution. The Constitution makes the President the head of the State. At the same time the Constitution lays down that the President shall not act except on the advice of what is termed the council of Ministers. Therefore, if the President is to act, it is absolutely essential, according to the Constitution, that there

551PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES must be in existence at all times a council of Ministers to advise him. We have not got any such provision as contained in section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935 where under certain circumstances and in certain contingencies the head of the province, namely the Governor, was permitted to act on his own authority without the advice of the Council of Ministers. We have not got any such provision at all. In fact, the whole of the Government will have to be suspended for the period of three months if this suggestion is to be given effect to. Therefore, from the point of view of the Constitution itself the suggestion made is quite impracticable. Both the Members, Babu Ramnarayan Singh as well as Prof. Ranga, also referred to the conduct of the civil servants who, they thought, either under the positive directions of the Ministers under whom they are serving or because of their desire to flatter and help and to win the goodwill of the Ministers under whom they are serving, were engaged in political activities in which they ought not to engage. I am very sorry to hear of that. If the fact as alleged by either one of them is true, it undoubtedly indicates a great deal of demoralization in the civil servants. It is all the more regrettable because we have taken ample pains in the Constitution and the rules that have been framed thereunder, to give the civil servants the utmost security in the matter of the tenure of their posts in the promotion to which they are entitled to and all the other privileges as to salaries etc. All that was done with the definite intention of giving the civil servants the security which it is necessary for them to have in order to be independent in the matter of administration. if, notwithstanding the security that has been given to them, the civil servants are not standing up to the best of their traditions, all that I can say is this that there has been a great demoralization. But I do not know what remedy one could adopt. As the Bible says. “If the Salt has lost its Savour wherewithal shall it be salted ?” If the civil servants have lost their salt. I do not know how they could be salted. I think we must depend upon the general improvement in the mind of our people as a whole that there are certain moral principles to which we must adhere in the course of our public life.

552 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I hope such an elevation of the moral sentiments will some day come. But if my friend insists that rather than wait for the improvement in the morals of the people we should apply some legal remedy, there again I find that it is not quite so easy. The only remedy that one can think of is to make a law whereby we could make the conduct of a civil servant which is partial to any particular party or which is not strictly in conformity with the rules of administration, penal and subject it to some kind of rigorous sentence. It seems to me that one point in this connection has to be borne in mind and that is a civil servant could not be made liable to prosecution at the will and whim of anybody who feels himselfs wronged by the conduct of such a civil servant. It would be necessary to provide some kind of a previous sanction in order that a prosecution may be lodged against the civil servant. Whose previous sanction shall be required ? Obviously the previous sanction must be the sanction of the Government or of the President. Prof. Ranga (Madrass): Why not of the Election Commissioner ? Dr. Ambedkar: Of the Election Commissioner ? Well, I have no idea and I do not want to say anything about the Election Commissioner because the officer, technically is supposed to be under me and I do not wish to say anything which would in any way derogate or depreciate from the authority of that particular officer. But let us admit that some kind of a sanction will be required before a prosecution is launched. Now I wonder whether the Government of the day, whom a particular administrator has helped, would be ready and willing to give its sanction. Therefore, if any such law was made, it would only be a paper law and would not have any effect in practice. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a matter which must be left to public morality and the sanctions of public morality. The second point to which I wish to refer is a point raised by Mr. Venkataraman. He suggested that in this Bill voting is regarded as a right. His contention was that it should be regarded as a duty, that a citizen of this country should not

553PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES merely have the right to vote, but he must have the duty to vote and that he ought to be visited with some kind of a publishment. The sentiment of course is very laudable and no doubt the principle has been accepted in some of the countries such as Australia, Belgium etc. But let us examine the position a little more carefully. If this obligation is to be a real obligation, where in a country like India, according to Mr. Venkataraman himself and according to many others who have experience of elections, there is a general apathy regarding voting, the punishment must be somewhat serious. It could not be five rupees ; it could not be ten rupees. It shall have to be something like one hundred rupees. Now, I wonder whether anybody in this House, however enthusiastic he may be with regard to the point that every citizen ought to exercise his duty, would be prepared to support a punishment so condign, as the one represented by a fine of rupees one hundred. I doubt very much if many Members will come forward to support it. If the punishment is not rigorous enough, then again the law will be of no value at all. Secondly, in a matter of this sort we will have to grant many exemptions. A voter may be on that day ill. If he is not ill, but finds subsequently that it is brought up before the court, it would not be very difficult to go to a medical man and obtain a certificate by paying eight annas, as most of us in criminal courts do in obtaining postponement of the cases. If he is not his wife may be ill, or she may have been delivered on the same day. All these things would arise and we may have to give a lot of exemption so that the law ultimately may remain to be a bare skeleton. Shri Bharati (Madras): What about the Australian Constitution ? Dr. Ambedkar: In Australia almost everybody votes. I think the people who bring themselves within the ambit of this law are very few. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh): What is the panalty there ? Dr. Ambedkar: Five pounds.