Vol. 15 · pages 691–695

674 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Prof. K. T. Shah: That is our difficulty. This new clause has been suddenly put forward. If you do not allow us to move our amendments and at least try to bring out the new ideas that are there ............. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the difficulty of hon. Members. The notice of the new amendment proposing substitution of old clause 7 seems to have been circulated only last night or this morning. That has to be remembered. So. we shall take up clause 7 at 3-30 P.M. And whenever notices are given they will be cyclostyled and circulated to all hon. Members. Without any formality all amendments may be handed over to the Secretary. We will take them up at 3-30 today. So clause 7 will stand over. What other clause shall we take up now ? Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I want to add a new clause 166A. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clause 7 has been held over. Let us proceed in order. The other ones that are standing over are clauses 122, 123 and 124. I do not know when they will be ready—it depends upon how soon the draftsmen will be ready. If they are ready this afternoon we will take them up. Shri Kamath: There is a lot of last skipping. Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will not skip over—of course whenever a clause is not ready we will skip it over. New Clause 166A Dr. Ambedkar: We shall take up clause 166A. My amendment is No. 8 in supplementary list No. 7 to consolidated list No. 2. But I have to make one or two verbal changes in that amendment. In line 9 of sub-section (1), instead of “nomination as a candidate”. I want to put it as “nomination as such candidate”, thereby substituting “such” for “a”. Then in sub-section (2) I want to renumber (a) and (b) as (b) and (c) and I want to add a new part (a) which will read as follows: “(a) “Candidate” has the same meaning as in section 78.” I want to move the amendment, as modified above. I beg to move: In Part X after clause 156, insert the following clause:

675PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES “166A. Special provisions with respect to Rulers of former Indian States —(1) If the Ruler of a former Indian State is nominated as a candidate for any election under this Act, the provisions of sub-section (i) of section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) and of sub-section ( 2) and (3 ) of section 197A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), shall not apply in relation to such Ruler during the period commencing on the date of his nomination as such candidate and ending on the date on which the result of the election is published under section 66, and shall not apply thereafter in relation to any proceedings for questioning the validity or regularity of such election under Part VI of this Act or in relation to any criminal proceedings against such Ruler for any offence under Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter III of Part VII of this Act alleged to have been committed by him at or in connection with such election. (2) In this section— (a) “Candidate” has the same meaning as in section 78; (b) “former Indian State “ means any such Indian State as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the purposes of this section. (c) “Ruler”, in relation to a former Indian State, means the person who for the time being is recognised by the President as the Ruler of that State for the purposes of the Constitution.” Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment of Dr. Ambedkar moved. Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, we cannot follow the amendment. Will you please give us some explanation ? Are the Rulers also going to be candidates and will they be exempt from the Criminal Procedure Code ? Dr. Ambedkar: The position is this. As the House will remember, when the report of the Select Committee was discussed, it was suggested that the ruling princes should be disqualified from being members of a legislature. Various grounds were urged. One of them was that they were holding a sort of office of profit under the Government of India by virtue of the engagements that they had with the Government of India and under which the Government of India had agreed to give them certain sums annually. I then said that it did not appear to me that this was an office of profit and therefore, it could not come under the provisions of the article in the Constitution which deals with the holders of offices of profit. I also said at the time when the matter was discussed that

676 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I did not find any valid justification as to why a ruling prince, qua a ruling prince, should be disqualified from being a member of a legislature. Subsequently it was urged that these ruling princes had been given certain protection under ‘ the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code, by virtue of which it was not possible for a person to file a criminal complaint against them or to file a civil suit without the previous sanction of the Government of India. On this ground it was said that if this protection extended to the period intervening between the nomination and the polling, a Prince may commit any offence or he may commit any corrupt practice or illegal practice and it would not be possible for any individual to bring him to book, because the permission of the Government of India was necessary. I felt that this was a legitimate complaint—that if a Prince wanted to stand for election he should not be permitted to claim the protection, that has been given to him by the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, what is proposed in this amendment is this that if a Prince stands as a candidate for an election, whether it is an election from a Parliamentary constituency or an election to the State Legislative Assembly, he shall automatically cease to obtain the benefits conferred upon him by the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code so that he may be prosecuted for an offence without the sanction of the Government of India. An election petition may be lodged against him without the consent of the Government of India and any other proceedings may be taken against him as though he was a common citizen having no special privileges. This, I think, is a via media between the old provision in the Select Committee’s Report that they should be qualified to stand for election and be Members of Parliament without abrogation of the privileges that were given to them under the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes and the other position taken by other Members of the House that they should be straightway disqualified from standing for election. I hope the House will accept this amendment, because it strikes a middle path.

677PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Moulvi Wajed Ali (Assam): May I put one question to the Hon. the Law Minister ? If the candidate fails to be elected or for some reason or other does not stand for election will the exemptions stand or will they be revived ? Dr. Ambedkar: The suspension of the protection will operate only during the period of the nomination and the ending of the election. Dr. Pattabhi (Madras): Will he have to face all the natural consequences of the election ? Dr. Ambedkar: He will be subject to all the consequences of the election. Prof. K. T. Shah : May I enquire if the House is committed to the principle that the Princes may be allowed to stand for election ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no restriction in the Bill as it emerged from the Select Committee—there is no prohibition prohibiting a Prince from standing as a candidate either in the Constitution or in the Bill as it emerged from the Select Committee. Hon. Member ought to put the question the other way. The motion was adopted New Clause 166A was added to the Bill. Clause 167. —(Power to make rules ) *Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move : After part (c) of sub-clause (2) of clause 167, insert the following: “(cc) the manner in which votes are to be given by a presiding officer, polling officer, polling agent or any other person, who being an elector for a constituency is authorised or appointed for duty at a polling station at which he is not entitled to vote.” Mr. Deputy Speaker : Amendment moved. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The effect of the amendment will be, the rules may provide for regulating the manner in which a candidate or the election agent or other agent of a candidate in which he is not a voter can vote. *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 28th May 1951, pp. 9498-9501.

678 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri J. R. Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh): That will not solve the difficulty, because the candidate may be a voter in a particular constituency, but the constituency is such a wide one that at the particular time that he has to record his vote, he may not be at the particular polling station within the area in which his vote has to be recorded. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The constituency is there. There are a number of polling stations in a constituency. After all, there may be two or three divisions in a constituency. He will be in some polling station. Is it necessary to provide for all this ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: So that, he may be allowed to vote in any of the polling stations where he happens to be at that time. He may be in the constituency, but not in the particular polling station. The constituency may extend to a whole district. He will be in one polling station. He should be allowed to vote at the polling station where he happens to be at that time. Dr. Ambedkar: There are two questions to be considered with regard to candidates. One question is that a candidate belongs to another province altogether. His constituency is not in the State in which he stands. That is one question. The other question is this. In a constituency, there are various polling stations. He is residing in the area of a particular polling station, he is supposed to go and vote. That is the logical consequence. Suppose in his daily peregrinations on the election day, he is not anywhere near the particular polling station or the polling booth, but somewhere else. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Law Minister may kindly consider whether the words candidate or his agent may not be included in the clause (ee) which he has proposed. Dr. Ambedkar: I am coming to that. What I suggest is this. As I said, there are two cases which have to be provided for. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena is providing only for the case of a candidate who is coming from another province. The other case still remains unprovided.