Vol. 15 · pages 596–600

579PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Hanumanthaiya: The difficulty is about the words “unavoidably prevented” and that may be a subject for interpretation in a court of law. Dr. Ambedkar: What is the other word that you will supply? Shri Hanumanthaiya: I will suggest a solution. Instead of the words ‘unavoidably prevented’ let the word ‘absent’ be used. Then there will be no controversy. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not want him to be absent. That is my point. Once he is appointed to perform the duty and especially when he is regarded as a persona designata it should be obligatory upon him that notwithstanding other functions, he must attend to this function first. Shri Hanumanthaiya: Then it can easily be answered in a court of law. ‘Unavoidably prevented’ is a matter of proof. Dr. Ambedkar: It may be a matter of proof. Shri P. Basi Reddi: Why not give previous authorisation to one of the Returning Officers ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: He has answered that point. This argument is getting endless. If he was not really unavoidably prevented and if it is only a question between the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer, it does not matter. The point is that the election may be called in question. Is there any posibility to rectify this? Dr. Ambedkar: I think that is a matter between the Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer so far as I can interpret it. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras): In sub-clause (2) the words are: “Every Assistant Returning Officer shall, subject to the control of the Returning Officer, be competent to perform all the functions etc.” So this is the only limitation. Dr. Ambedkar: The last portion is not the enacting portion; the earlier portion is the enacting portion. The Election Commission may take the Returning Officer to task if it came to know that he absented himself without any unavoidable reason.

580 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Hanumanthaiya: As the Deputy Speaker pointed out, it may be between the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer but what about the candidates in the election ? Dr. Ambedkar: It is quite enough for the candidate to prove that the Returning Officer was absent. Whether he was absent for any unavoidable reason or not is a matter to be regulated by the Election Commissioner. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: It has to be proved whether he was unvoidably prevented or not. Shri Raj Bahadur: May I put a question to Mr. Hanumanthaiya ? Who will decide whether the absence was unavoidable or not; Election commissioner or the officer concerned ? The Election Commissioner knows whether he was unavoidably absent or not. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The Tribunal shall have to decide if he was unavoidably prevented. Shri Shiv Charan lal (Uttar Pradesh) : I think it will be all right if only one line is added, that if there are more than one Assistant Returning Officer, the Returning Officer shall nominate one of them as the seniormost one. Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has already been said. That is Mr. Kapoor’s amendment. Now, I shall put Mr. Kapoor’s amendment to the House. Shri Hanumanthaiya: I want to make a motion... Mr. Deputy Speaker: That we will come to later. Shri Hanumanthaiya : With respect to this clause I make a definite motion that this clause may be taken up later for consideration. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is: “That further consideration of clause 20 be postponed.” The motion was negatived.

581PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES *Shri Barman : Let me make the position clear, from my personal experience. In my constituency, two districts are tagged together and the Divisional Commissioner is the Returning Officer. We have all along been submitting our nomination papers to the personal assistant. This has gone so for a very long time. Dr. Ambedkar : If I Understand the hon. Member correctly, what the amendment means is this. In the Proviso as it stands, three functions can be performed by the Returning Officer, or the Assistant Returning Officer in the absence of the Returning Officer. They are : acceptance of nomination paper, scrutiny of nominations and the counting of votes. What my hon. friend wants by his amendment is that only two functions may be performed, that is scrutiny of nominations and counting of votes. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The wording is, shall not perform these two unless the other is unavoidably absent. Dr. Ambedkar : There is no such thing in amendment No. 284. Shri Barman : I want elimination of that clause only. Dr. Ambedkar : That is the sub-clause relating to acceptance of nomination paper and the rest will remain ? Shri Santhanam : Both the Returning Officer and the other Assistant Returning Officer will be persona designata. That will be the result. Shri Barman : So far as scrutiny and counting of votes are concerned, they are important and they should remain with the Returning Officer. In case he is unavoidably absent, some other Assistant Returning Officer may do them. Dr. Ambedkar : There is a vast difference between the two sides. Shri Barman : But, so far as acceptance of nomination paper is concerned, my submission is this. This filing of nomination papers goes on for days together. If the Returning *P.D., Vol. 12, Part II, 15th May 1951, pp. 8784-86.

582 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Officer alone is authorised to accept them, then he will have to be present all the 24 hours in the station. That is not always possible. An hon. Member : It is only from eleven to three. Shri Barman : But, it goes on all the days. Even the assistant receives the nomination papers. He will only have to scrutinise whether the nomination paper tallies with the voters’ list, and whether the deposit has been made. Scrutiny is done by the Returning Officer on a fixed date. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not understand why my friend is objecting to the acceptance of the nomination paper by a highly important officer such as the Assistant Returning Officer and prefers to lodge the paper with an assistant. Shri Santhanam : The point is that the Assistant Returning Officer should be able to accept the nomination paper at any time without reference to the Returning Officer. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The proviso says that the Returning Officer alone shall perform these functions. Three categories of functions are taken away from the Assistant Returning Officers. Normally, all the functions which a Returning Officer can discharge, can also be discharged by the Assistant Returning Officers. The earlier portion of the proviso says that these following three functions shall not be discharged by the Assistant Returning Officers except under an extraordinary circumstance, namely, that the Returning Officer is unavoidably prevented from performing the said function. Out of these three categories, he wants to remove one category. That means, that it is only in the case of scrutiny and counting of votes that the Assistant Returning Officers shall be prevented from discharging them unless the Returning Officer is unavoidably prevented. With respect to the acceptance, even if the Returning Officer is there, the Assistant Returning Officer may receive. Or, if he is not there, his unavoidably being prevented from performing the said function does not arise. Let us assume that he is not unavoidably prevented. He may come in at any time. The Assistant Returning Officer may receive. There is no harm. With respect to scrutiny and

583PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES counting of votes, he must be satisfied that the Returning Officer is unavoidably prevented. Let not the Assistant Returning Officer but in and exercise the functions of the Returning Officer which are of a more onerous nature. For receiving nomination papers, simultaneously he can receive. Suppose the Collector is the Returning Officer. The Deputy Collector who may be the Assistant Returning Officer will say, the collector is there and he will receive. That would normally happen. This appears to be reasonable. I leave it to the Hon. Minister. 12-00 NOON Dr. Ambedkar : No change in the proviso is necessary. As we know, a lot of gol-mal takes place. Shri Bharati : We would like to know what acceptance means really. Does it mean merely receiving the nomination or the final acceptance of it, which implies final rejection also in some cases ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : It merely means scrutiny immediately at the first stage and receiving it. It is not the final acceptance. *Clause 22. —(General duty of the Returning Officer ) Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I beg to move : In clause 22, for “It shall be the general duty” substitute “It shall be the duty”. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is a presiding officer at a polling station and it is the special duty of the polling officer to receive papers. Likewise those are special duties. It is the general duty of the Returning Officer to arrange for these. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : If we say “It shall be the duty” of the officer, it will be general duty. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not think that any harm can arise by the retention of the word ‘general’. I have examined the matter and have seen that this clause is an exact verbatim reproduction of the English law. That also contains ‘general’. *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 15th May 1951, pp. 8790-91.