Vol. 15 · pages 656–660

639PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES candidate. All that is necessary is that he should exercise his choice within the prescribed time. He has been given power under this very clause to say whether he wants to retain constituency No. A. B. or C. Therefore there is no occasion or necessity for the Election Commissioner either to enquire from him or to make a decision on his behalf that he should be allowed to retain one seat. The choice is entirely in the hands of the candidate and I do not know whether such a provision is at all necessary. Mr. Speaker: His point seems to me to be that, it is possible that this contingency may be out of sight of the candidate who is elected and therefore the Election Commissioner would do better, if he sent something by way of a reminder informing the candidate that he stands to lose all the seats. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not think that such a contingency could be contemplated for, the simple reason that every candidate elected will certainly arm himself with a copy of the rules. And he may be presumed to have read the rules. Another difficulty which I see is this, that even if an obligation was imposed upon the Election Commissioner to make an enquiry then he must fulfil that obligation with regard to every such candidate Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: There will be very few who will be returned from more than one constituency—he must be a very popular man who is elected from more than one constituency. Mr. Speaker: The contingency is more academic. *Shri S. N. Das: I request the Hon. Minister again to agree to the suggestion that expenses should be minimized in the elections. The whole work should be done in accordance with it and the rule-making authority as well as the Ministry should frame rules keeping all these things in view so that the real representatives of the people, even if they are not rich, may be easily elected. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not accept the amendment. 10-00 A.M. * P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 23rd May 1951, p. 9272.

640 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Clause 80 *Shri Hathi (Saurashtra): Sub-clauses (a) and (b) deal with the category of persons who have to send the petition. Sub-clause (c) deals with the method. As it originally stood, the categories of persons and the methods were connected together. It is simply in order to separate the categories of persons and the method by which it is to be sent that this amendment seems to have been moved. The amendment does not in any way alter the substance. It is only a better way of expression. Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, that is the same thing. I need not add anything more to what the hon. Member has said. Shri Kamath : Shall we add ‘with acknowledgment due’ ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: We need not add it. All that is necessary is that it must be delivered to the other side. The question is: For sub-clause (2) of clause 80, substitute the following sub-clause: “(2) An election petition shall be deemed to have been presented to the Election Commission— (a) when it is delivered to the Secretary to the Commission or to such other officer as may be appointed by the Election Commission in this behalf— (i) by the person making the petition, or (ii) by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition; or (b) when it is sent by registered post and is delivered to the Secretary to the Commission or the officer so appointed.” The motion was adopted. **Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think it is necessary to labour the point. What has the Law Minister to say on the amendment ? Dr. Ambedkar: I accept the amendment. * P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 23rd May 1951, pp. 9280-81. ** Ibid., p, 9282.

641PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Clause 85 * Shri Satish Chandra: The House adjourned yesterday to discuss the amendments informally. We adjourned from that informal meeting at 1 o’clock and I gave notice of my amendment at 1 P.M. But it has been admitted in today’s date. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was this matter discussed and agreed upon in the informal committe? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, it was agreed upon. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was it agreed that no advocate ought to be there ? Dr. Ambedkar: Nobody wants any advocate. The matter can arise only by deleting part (b) of sub-clause (2). It cannot arise on this. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even accepting the clause as it stands he cannot avoid any advocate. Shri Satish Chandra: I would suggest that this clause may be held over. The Members had no opportunity of giving any notice of amendments after yesterday’s informal discussion. Notice has been given by me after the discussion but it will come up only tomorrow. If you allow me to move my amendment of which I have given notice, I shall do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not that I am bound by any of those decisions, but anyhow the hon. Member also had sat in that informal meeting which came to an agreed arrangement with reference to this matter. A contrary decision was arrived at there. Is it worthwhile my allowing the clause to stand over ? Shri Satish Chandra: I would respectfully submit that out of the 320 Members of the House which adjourned yesterday for the specific purpose of holding an informal discussion on tabled amendments, not as many Members as the strength of the Select Committee on this Bill were present. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Who is to blame? The Hon. Minister ? *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 23rd May 1951, pp. 9284-85.

642 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Satish Chandra: I do not blame the Hon. Minister. Dr. Ambedkar: You yourself were present. Never mind whether others were present or not, you yourself were present. Shri Satish Chandra: I objected to the amendment, but I was not allowed to have my full say. So, what I wish is that…….. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Member has not tabled an amendment. Shri Satish Chandra: I have tabled an amendment and its copy is with me. It could not be on the order paper today. I gave it to the Notice Office yesterday after 1 P.M. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a fundamental issue as to whether lawyers are to be trusted or not. Therefore, even before this amendment was tabled he had enough time to give notice of an amendment. I am prepared to waive notice if he is able to show either in the consolidated list or in any of the supplementary lists any amendment standing in his name saying that lawyers are taboo—I would not stand on formality. But if after yesterday’s discussion he thinks of a new thing I would not agree to it being moved now. Shri Satish Chandra: I would submit that this majority of lawyers in the Election Tribunal was created only yesterday. It was not there before. Dr. Ambedkar: In the amendment moved by my friend, Mr. Munishwar Datt Upadhyay there is no provision that there shall be a majority of lawyers. Only the chairman shall be a judicial officer, but the others may be non-judicial. Shri Satish Chandra: The two persons out of three may be advocates. I do not know what else is a majority. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay: His amendment, if there is any, refers to another clause—it has nothing to do with this clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker: He does not say he has any amendment.

643PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Satish Chandra : I submit, Sir, that it may be held over. After all there is a difference of opinion among the hon. Members, some of whom feel strongly over this point. Just as other clauses have been held over. I suggest, this also may be held over and may be allowed to come up later. If it is held over it is possible there might be some agreed formula to satisfy all. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not think there is any ground for holding it over. Shri J. R. Kapoor: I am not entirely in favour of what Mr. Satish Chandra has been arguing, but then all of a sudden it does strike me that there is some point of fundamental importance that he has been arguing, and it is that Mr. Munishwar Datt’s amendment to part (b) of sub-clause (3) of clause 85 stipulates that instead of one there shall be two members selected by the Election Commission from either of the lists maintained by it under sub-clause (2). But these two could be selected not necessarily only from the list under part (a) but from both the lists under parts (a) and (b). Dr. Ambedkar: In which case his objection vanishes. Shri J. R. Kapoor: So that objection goes. Shri Kamath : May I point out that the acceptance of the amendment of Mr. Upadhyay by the Law Minister and perhaps later on by the House lends some point to the question raised by my friend Mr. Satish Chandra ? Clause 85 sub-clause (3) as it stands reads as follows: “Every Tribunal appointed under sub-section ( 1) shall consist of— (a) a Chairman who shall be either a person who is or has been a judge of a High Court or a person selected by the Election Commission from the list maintained by it under clause (a) of sub-section (2); and (b) one other member selected by the Election Commission from either of the lists maintained by it under sub-section (2):” The acceptance of the amendment of Mr. Upadhyay will lead to this, that the two members he proposes in place of one can be selected from either of these lists, that is to say the posibility is there that both of them can be from the list mentioned in part (b).