Vol. 15 · pages 606–610

589PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES election shall not be appointed as polling officer. If there is a servant of the District Local Board or the Municipal Board who is not so employed, he is free to be appointed. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not think this amendment is necessary because the Returning Officer shall be a Government officer and if he fails to discharge his duty, he would certainly be liable to action either under the rules of conduct for the Government servants or under any law for misconduct. Prof. Ranga : Or under the Rules under this Act. Mr. Speaker : Does the hon. Member want me to put the amendment to the House ? Shri S. N. Das : No, Sir. Clause 28. —(Appointment of dates for nominations ) Mr. Speaker : Let me take the printed list. Master Nand Lal is absent. Mr. B. K. Das. Shri B. K. Das (West Bengal) : Not moving, Sir. Shri M. V. Rama Rao (Mysore) : Not moving. Sir. Mr. Speaker : There are a number of amendments to clause 28 in the Supplementary List No. 1. I think the better course for me would be to put all the amendments of hon. Members that are here and then if any Member is left out, it will be his business to rise up. Amendment No. 76 in Supplementary List No. 1. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Not moving. Dr. Ambedkar : This has been disposed of already. This is an amendment which he has been moving all along for the purpose of changing the Chapters. Mr. Speaker : He is not going to move it. Shri Hussain Imam : Sir, the Hon. Minister of Parliamentary Affairs himself is standing when the Speaker is on his legs.

590 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Only small fries are caught. Mr. Speaker : No question of big or small fries. Dr. Ambedkar : I think Mr. Chaudhuri may devote his attention to more serious matters. Mr. Speaker : In view of the time taken and in view of the points of order raised here. I think I had better say that those hon. Members who want to move their amendments may please stand up. No other ? Several Hon. Members : No, Sir. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I beg to move : In part (c) of clause 28, for the words “date for the scrutiny” substitute the words “date appointed for the scrutiny”. My reason for bringing in this amendment is that the words “date for scrutiny” are rather loose and the words that I have suggested, i.e. “date appointed for the scrutiny” are more precise. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not accept it. Mr. Speaker : The question is : In part (c) of clause 28, for the words “date for the scrutiny” substitute the words “date appointed for the scrutiny”. The motion was negatived. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I beg to move : In part (d) of clause 28, for the words “if necessary” substitute the words “where necessary”. The existing words “if necessary” indicate a condition precedent; but the words suggested by me, i.e. “where necessary” refer to the occasion. Dr. Ambedkar : I am not accepting it. Mr. Speaker : The question is : In part (d) of clause 28, for the words “if necessary” substitute the words “where necessary”. The motion was negatived. Shri Meeran : I now move amendment No. 328 standing in my name, in a slightly amended form which is acceptable to the Hon. Law Minister. I beg to move : *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9114.

591PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES After sub-clause (5) of clause 31, insert the following new sub-clause : “(5a) If at the time of the presentation of the nomination paper the Returning Officer finds that the name of the candidate is not registered in the electoral roll of the constituency for which, he is the Returning Officer, he shall for the purposes of subsection (5) require the person presenting the nomination paper to produce either a copy of the electoral roll in which the name of the candidate is included or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll.” I don’t think I need say much on this because the Hon. Minister has agreed to this amendment. Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved. Dr. Ambedkar : I have also given notice of an amendment to the same effect. So I agree to this amendment. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I also had an amendment to clause 5 in this connection. My feeling is, why should the huge cost of supplying copies of the electoral rolls which is going to be heavy, be borne by the candidate ? Why should not a copy of the relevant entries of the electoral roll of the constituency only be produced ? Dr. Ambedkar : The word there is “or”. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Yes, I am trying to explain. The option in this case lies with the Returning Officer. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : I strongly object to the amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. But in order to bring about a uniformity of decisions of all the Returning Officers in different places, it would I think be better to substitute the word “shall” for the word “may”. Shri Shiv Charan Lal (Uttar Pradesh) : I do not think that there is room for any fear, as expressed by my hon. friend Prof. Ranga and Shri Syamnandan Sahaya that the Returning Officer may not correct nomination papers, because it has been clearly laid down in section 34 that no nomination paper will be rejected on the ground of any technical mistake. Therefore,

592 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES whether he corrects it or not, it is not in his power to reject a nomination paper on the ground of technical mistake. Shri Rudrappa (Mysore) : .......... There may be so many cases in these nomination papers where the date of birth has to be filled and if the candidate is living in the village he cannot get the date of birth. Mr. Chairman : Date of birth ? Shri Rudrappa : That will be one of the items. I am giving an instance. There will be the required age—above thirty or twenty years. How he may find out and put the correct date of birth, if necessary ......... There must be some scope for the Returning Officer to rectify these clerical errors and technical mistakes. If such a provision is not included, I think it will result in very great injustice to many and it will also result in great litigation even after the election. Therefore this provision is quite necessary in the interests of the candidates as well as in the interest of the elections and the electors themselves. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not accept the amendment. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Then I would like to withdraw it. The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : There is another amendment in my name (No. 14 in Supplementary List No. 3). This also is an attempt to clarify the position. The amendment reads : In the first Proviso to sub-clause (3) of clause 31, after the word “candidate” occurring in line 2. Insert the words “for the reserved seats”. The proviso reads like this : “Provided that in a constituency where any seat is reserved for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes, no candidate shall be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a declaration verified in the prescribed manner that the candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes or of the Scheduled Tribes for which the seat has been so reserved...........”

593PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Now, we have in our experience found that sometimes the Returning Officers take queer views. Otherwise many difficulties in the matter of these nominations would not have arisen and there might not have been so many election petitions and cases. I therefore desire to clarify the position by adding the words “ for the reserved seats” after the word “candidate”. Mr. Chairman : Has the hon. Member seen the words “to fill that seat” in the proviso ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Yes, Further on also it is said “for which the seat has been so reserved”. I have seen all that. But I am suggesting the addition just to clarify the matter, because after all wherever there is a reservation there is one seat reserved and the other is a general seat. So if we add these words it appears to me to be a little clearer. Dr. Ambedkar : There is no ambiguity and no such clarification is necessary. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Then I will not press it. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay (Uttar Pradesh) : I do not wish to move my amendment No. 317 in the Consolidated List but I want to make a suggestion to the Hon. Minister which he may accept. My submission is that the phrase “and who is not subject to any disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950” is redundant and absolutely unnecessary ........... Why should we have so many words and so many lines unnecessarily although they do not add anything to the meaning ? That is what I would like to submit. Dr. Ambedkar : It is an economy measure, I understand. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay : As a matter of fact these words are absolutely unnecessary, because if he is an elector then he is not disqualified in that manner. Because that is the qualification of an elector given in the section to which it refers, that is section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. So I submit that it is absolutely redundant.