Vol. 15 · pages 616–620

599PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES be sprung upon the House. May I know whether this amendment moved at this juncture is admissible? Pandit Kunzru : Sub-clause (5) requires that ......... Dr. Ambedkar : To shorten the proceedings, I would say that I am accepting the amendment. Mr. Chairman : The Hon. Minister in charge is going to accept the amendment. * Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay : I will not repeat the objections taken by some hon. Members. In view of the difficulties that arise on account of the acceptance of this amendment. I would suggest the acceptance of amendment No. 348 in the printed list, namely the insertion of the words “beyond second day” after the words “adjournment of the proceedings.” That will solve all the difficulties. “The Returning Officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 28 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings beyond second day except..........” I do not think any such difficulty would arise in accepting that amendment. Dr. Ambedkar : Apart from the question whether the existing rules in U.P. and other provinces contain such a rule as is stated in the amendment. I think it is possible for the House to consider this matter independently on its own merits. What is the Returning Officer’s job ? His job is set out in sub-clause (2) of clause 24 that he shall decide upon the points stated there from (a) to (e). Those are the possible objections that a candidate may raise against another. It does seem to me that if one candidate is confronted with an objection falling, for instance under (b), namely “that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act” or if he is confronted with the objection falling under (e) that the signature of the candidate or any proposer or seconder is not genuine or has been obtained by fraud, it seems to me somewhat difficult that he should * P. D. Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9163-66.

600 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES be required to meet those charges immediately then and there. Therefore sheer equity would require that some time may be given to him in order that the candidate may either produce some documentary evidence or the oral evidence of some witnesses to disprove the allegation and it is on that ground that I felt inclined to accept that amendment, because otherwise it would be permitting one candidate to take another by complete surprise by not giving any time to disprove the allegation. I think that this is an amendment which certainly appeals to me and ought to appeal to everybody......... Shri Santhanam : Will it be possible for the Returning Officer to accept those nominations for which no objections had been raised. He has to decide all the nominations at the same time. Dr. Ambedkar : Where is the hurry for the man accepting some nominations. After all he has to accept the nominations on the final date after the adjournment. There is no harm. This will be done on the final day and that is what the amendment says. The amendment is very clear. The Returning Officer must record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned. There is no discretion given to the returning officer to postpone decision. Shri Santhanam : Cannot objection be taken on the postponed day also ? It must be made clear. Supposing on the other day some objection is raised. Dr. Ambedkar : Objection must be raised on the day on which the scrutiny begins—there can be no objection on any other day except the date of scrutiny. Mr. Chairman : The question raised by Mr. Syamnandan Sahaya and Mr. Hussain Imam is : is there any provision for such a contingency ? Dr. Ambedkar : There is no provision. Can anybody make any provision ? Can anybody know how long the riot will last ? In Bombay the riot lasted sometimes for twenty-nine days. Therefore it must be left to the Returning Officer to be convinced that matters are peaceful and he can hold the scrutiny. How can anybody say in a law that if the Returning

601PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Officer adjourns the scrutiny on the first day because there is a riot he should hold the scrutiny on the second day or the third day ? The riot may continue. Mr. Chairman: That is so far as the time is concerned. But there should be some provision that the Returning Officer should make his scrutiny. Dr. Ambedkar: It seems to me that it is quite implicit in the clause. Our dramatists have a habit. If I may say so. If somebody is dead they must carry the corpse on the stage, otherwise the audience does not understand it. As I said most of these things are implicit in the clause. Mr. Chairman : I will now put Pandit Kunzru’s amendment to vote. The motion (as mentioned earlier) was adopted. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: I have an amendment to move, No. 24 in supplementary list No. 3. I beg to move: In sub-clause (4) of clause 34, for the word “refuse” substitute the word “reject”. The Hon. Minister pointed out that the word “refuse” has been used in reference to nominations and the word “reject” has been used in relation to nomination papers. I would like to draw his attention to sub-clause (4) of clause 34 where the word “refuse” has been used with reference to nomination papers. Perhaps “reject” may be accepted here. Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved : In sub-clause (4) of clause 34, for the word “refuse” substitute the word “reject”. Dr. Ambedkar: If my friend’s aesthetic sense is affected I am quite happy to give him satisfaction. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: As a matter of fact, in this House we have to care for the aesthetic sense of people sitting opposite—nobody cares for our aesthetic sense.

602 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: In this case I will accept my hon. friend’s amendment. Shri. T. T. Krishnamachari: As regards scrutiny of nominations, may I point out, Sir, that direction may be given that clause 28(c) which has been passed by this House may be suitably amended in the third reading ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, I have another amendment also to move at that, stage. Mr. Chairman: I will now put Mr. Sahaya’s amendment to vote. The question is: In sub-clause (4) of clause 34, for the word “refuse” substitute the word “reject”. The motion was adopted. *Dr. Deshmukh : I beg to move : In sub-clause (4) of clause 34, after the word “substantial” insert the words “and vital”. . Sir, the reason why I wish that the words “or vital” should be added is, the meaning of the word substantial is not very definite. I referred to the dictionary and found a variety of meanings attached to the word ‘substantial’. It can mean having substance, material, stout, strong, bulky, real, solid, conforming to what is essential, involving essential etc. Dr. Ambedkar: What is the meaning of vital ? Dr. Deshmukh: That which will affect the candidature in a very direct and a vital manner. I have also an alternative to suggest which I hope the Hon. Minister will accept. If we omit the words “which is not of a substantial character” that will serve the purpose—that is, if we merely say that the Returning Officer shall not refuse any nomination paper on the ground of any technical defect. By the addition of the words “which is not of a substantial character” we make it still more ambiguous and give scope for interpretation in different ways. Hence I suggest that *P.D., Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9166-67.

603PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES either the words “and vital” be added, or the words “which is not of a substantial character” be omitted. A technical defect is understandable. I now come to my second amendment. I beg to move: In sub-clause (5) of clause 34, omit the words “or obstructed by riot or open violence”. Why should we limit the obstruction of the proceedings to only riot and open violence ? I think it is very tantalising, Sir, to refer to only two causes. There might be a variety of causes by which the proceedings may be interrupted. Hence I suggest the deletion of these words. In fact this is in my view an invitation to riot and open violence, if some candidate chooses to do it. Shri Sidhva: What about a cyclone ? Dr. Ambedkar: That would be covered under “causes beyond his control”. Dr. Deshmukh: If you omit the words “or obstructed by riot or open violence or” I do not think any harm would be done. I therefore hope that both of my amendments will be accepted. Mr. Chairman : Amedment moved : In sub-clause (4) of clause 34, after the word “substantial” insert the words “and vital”. In sub-clause (5) of clause 34, omit the words “or obstructed by riot or open violence or”. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not accept them. *Mr. Chairman: I will now put the clause. Shri Meeran: I have two amendments to this clause— Nos. 343 and 349 in the Consolidated List. Mr. Chairman: May I know whether the Hon. Minister is prepared to accept any of them ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am not accepting any amendment. *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9168-69,