Vol. 15 · pages 651–655

634 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: There is no point in proceeding with it now. It may be held over. Clause 60. —(Prevention of personation ). Shri Shiv Charan Lal: I want to move my amendment No. 120 in the Supplementary List 1, asking for the deletion of the clause. Mr. Chairman: That is a negative amendment. Shri Shiv Charan Lal: Then I shall only speak on the clause. This clause 60 requires the finger of the elector to be marked by some ink when the ballot paper is given to him……. There has been no such provision in our country till now and I do not think there is the slightest need for it even now. So we need not have this clause 60 . Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: The position seems to be that the hon. Member has not understood the implication of clause 60. We are now experimenting with adult suffrage and we are not having registration of voters followed by giving them identification cards. I believe certain State Governments contemplated taking photographs of voters and giving them identification cards, but the cost involved was tremendous and so we have to make some other arrangements. False personation is an inevitable factor associated with votings, especially when such huge numbers are involved and so we have the method suggested in clause 60. There is nothing wrong shout it, when the rich man and the poor man have all to get their thumbs marked. There is nothing infra dig about it. Because of our poverty as a country we cannot give registration or identity cards to everybody and you cannot expect every voter to sign in a particular place either for purposes of identification as many would be illiterate. So we have this device—a temporary expedient as I hope—during the first two or three elections. There is no use importing sentiment into this matter. It is just a wholesome provision against impersonation which is a common feature in all elections where such large numbers are involved. Dishonesty has to be provided against and if for that purpose we have

635PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES to put ourselves to some inconvenience, I do not think there is anything seriously wrong. The arguments that have been quoted in support of the amendment to delete this clause are made wholly without considering all aspects of the situation. Therefore I support the clause as it stands. Mr Chairman: The question is: “That clause 60 stand part of the Bill”. The motion was adopted. Clause 60 was added to the Bill. Clause 61— (Right to vote ) Amendment made: In sub-clause (5) of clause 61, omit the words “or is subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force”. —[Shri J. R. Kapoor ] Dr. Ambedkar: The House should also take into consideration what I stated that although postal ballot appears to be the easiest method to adopt, as I said, unless elections are to be indefinitely postponed, we will have to make some provision for administrative difficulties and not being able to give ballot paper to everyone. That has to be borne in mind. What I thought was,—as I am not in a position to at once suggest an amendment which would give the persons under preventive detention the right to vote and also to meet the administrative difficulties,—I wanted to put it to the House whether it would not be desirable to deal with this matter under clause 167 which gives power to make rule. Mr. Chairman: Two courses are open—either it may be provided in the rules or since the amendment of Mr. Kapoor is before the House, any amendment to that may be moved. Dr. Ambedkar: What I wanted to say was this that some such words ‘as far as practicable’ would be necessary. The words ‘as far as practicable’ do not occur in any of the clauses of 59. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: The clause itself reads like this: “Provision may be made by rules made under this Act”.

636 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES There is nothing mandatory about it. Dr. Ambedkar: My point is, under this rule it would be obligatory to provide a ballot paper for every one of the voters who is covered by this while so far as detained persons are concerned, on account of the difficulties that I have mentioned it may not be possible to provide a ballot paper for everyone. Otherwise the detenu may file a suit. Mr. Chairman: Supposing the words “so far as practicable” are put in here along with the amendment. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not think the words “so far as practicable” should be made applicable to any of the other categories specified, because it is possible to provide a ballot paper for every one who comes under these categories. Only in regard to this will only cause bitterness among people. And if it is done it would only produce obstacles in the way of a popular Scheduled Caste candidate in contesting elections for the general seats. Not only this much but his right to contest elections for the general seats and win them would also be nullified. Keeping this in view I think, Shri Sonavane should realize that he should not move such an amendment which may result in accelerating communal differences and bitterness and which might prove dangerous for the Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes themselves. My impression is that even if he does not get sufficient votes after contesting for the general seat, he would at least get the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. And in case he gets sufficient number of votes while contesting for the general seat then he would be elected on both the seats, the general as well as the reserved one. We should therefore declare it a separate seat, because this procedure cannot be followed with respect to a joint seat. And if the number of seats would be more in a plural constituency the voters only will have a right to give vote in the manner they like; of course the Harijans and the nonHarijans should have an equal footing for contesting elections for the general seat. In case the voters think that the Harijan candidate is a proper one and is capable, he will get votes of non-Harijans too and will be elected from that constituency. But in case he does not poll more votes then also he would

637PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES be entitled to get the second seat that has been reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 1-00 P.M. Dr. Ambedkar: I am not prepared to accept this amendment. Shri Sonavane: I beg for leave to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn. Shri J. R. Kapoor: I beg to move: For sub-clause (2) of clause 62, substitute the following: “(2) If an elector gives more than one vote to any one candidate in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (i) both the votes will be rejected.” Dr. Ambedkar: This matter was considered at great length in the Select Committee. Shri J. R. Kapoor: Many a thing was very seriously considered by the Select Committee. But you find what that careful consideration has come to when the report is scrutinised here. I would therefore, like to argue it out. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Member will do it tomorrow. The House then adjourned till Half Past Eight of the Clock on Tuesday, the 22nd May, 1951. Clause 62 *Mr. Speaker: Amendments moved: (i) In sub-clause (1) of clause 62, for the words “but no elector shall give more than one vote to any one candidate”, substitute the following : “and may give all those votes to one candidate or distribute between such candidates and in such a manner as he thinks fit”. (ii) Omit sub-clause (2) of clause 62. *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 23rd May 1951, pp. 9248-49.

638 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri R. Velayudhan (Travancore-Cochin) : May I speak on a few points ? Mr. Speaker: There was an informal conference yesterday and the hon. Member I believe was present. I agree that he has the right to speak, but I do not know what right morally he has to take up the time of the House after having taken up three hours of the House yesterday in an informal conference. I do not want to come in the way of his right to speak as long as he likes…….. Shri R. Velayudhan: But the other hon. Member spoke just now. Mr. Speaker: He was not present at the meeting as he did not belong to the Congress Party, to which the hon. Member belongs and that makes a lot of difference. Dr. Ambedkar: In view of what I stated in the remarks which I made on my motion I do not think I can accept this amendment. The motion was negatived. Clause 69 *Mr. Speaker: Is he suggesting that the Election Commissioner should be given the power of making rules like that? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: He can ask the candidate to choose one seat. Under the rules he can himself say that he wants to retain such and such a seat. In case of illness or other contingency he should be asked by the Election Commissioner which seat he wants to retain. In case of gross contingency the penalty may come in if at all. Dr. Ambedkar: What the hon. Member is suggesting is really unnecessary, because this is entirely left to the *P.D., Vol. 12, Part II, 23rd May 1951, pp. 9250-51.