Vol. 15 · pages 696–700

679PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Deputy Speaker: That can be included here “the manner in which votes are to be given by a presiding officer, polling officer, polling agent or a candidate or his agents etc.” Dr. Ambedkar: The clause refers to 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. It does not include the two categories of candidates. Therefore, one has to make provision for both categories. Mr. Deputy Speaker: You may include them. Dr. Ambedkar: Probably, the better course would be to reconsider the amendment. We can take it up at 3 o’clock so that we can have a proper amendment. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Include candidate and his election agent. Shri Hussain Imam: I suggested in the morning that Government servants who are transferred from one place to another should be given facilities for recording their vote. This may be included in the rule making power of Government. I may remind the Hon. Minister that proper facilities should be extended to government servants and those engaged in local self-government and public utility services who have been transferred from one place to another after enrolment. Shri Kamath: Sir, I have two amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am coming to them. Let me put Prof. Saksena’s amendment to the House. Dr. Ambedkar: I am thinking that perhaps if it is put in a proper form I may be in a position to accept it. So we may hold it over to 3 o’clock. In the meantime we may be able to find some suitable language. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The remaining amendments also may be handed over to Dr. Ambedkar. Shri Kamath: I beg to move: After part (g) of sub-clause (2) of clause 167, insert the following new part and re-letter the subsequent part accordingly: “(h) the maximum scales of expenses at elections- and the numbers and descriptions of persons who may be employed for payment in connection with elections.”

680 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the section relating to expenses, we have already provided for this. We have it stated that the maximum scales and election expenses shall be as may be prescribed, and any other matter required will be prescribed. Since that is already there, is it necessary to have this amendment now ? I think it is unnecessary. Shri Kamath: All right Sir. But I have another. I beg to move: After sub-clause (2) of clause 167, insert the following new sub-clause : “(3) The rules so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall be notified in the Official Gazette with such modifications as may be made therein by Parliament within a period of ten days after they are so laid.” Shall I speak on it, or is to be held over till 3 o’clock ? Dr. Ambedkar: He may speak now, but the voting may be held over. Clause 7 *Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: I have only one amendment unlike other Members who had several amendments to place before the House. My amendment is No. 201 in the Revised Consolidated list on page 20. I beg to move: To clause 7, add the following explanation : “Explanation.—A lawyer who renders professional services to Government or any department thereof and who is paid by retaining fees and other fees shall not be deemed to be holding an office of profit and shall not be disqualified to be chosen as a member of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State.” This is the only amendment that I have and I shall deal with it with all the firmness that it deserves and I hope the Hon. Law Minister will also be so pleased as to give some attention to what I say on this occasion. Dr. Ambedkar: I always do. I think. *P. D., Vol. 12; Part II, 28th May 1951, p. 9549.

681PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES *Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved : In part (f) of sub-clause (1) of clause 7, for the words “five years” substitute the words “three years”. Dr. Ambedkar : I could have adopted the same procedure which I had adopted with regard to most of the amendments, namely, to stand up and say that I do not propose to accept these amendments. In this case it seems somewhat necessary to make an exception, because some questions have been raised which I think call for some explanation. In the first place, I would like to give a reply to my hon. Friend there who said that the House has been taken by surprise at the fag end of the debate on this Bill by bringing in clause 7 at this time. It is quite true that clause 7 is brought before the House in a formal way only today. But I think my Friend will agree that there is no clause in this Bill to which the House as a whole, although informally, has devoted such a large part of its attention as clause 7. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee (West Bengal): Most important clause. Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot remember the number of meetings that were held of the Select Committee, of the larger Committee that was appointed, and also of the Committee of the whole House. I do not therefore think that there is any ground for the complaint that sufficient attention has not been paid to the provisions of clause 7. I think the clause has undergone a great deal of examination both from the point of view of propriety and from the point of view of meeting practical difficulties. Now, Sir, I will take some of the individual points that were made by various speakers. I will not devote any attention, to what my Friend Mr. Kamath said, and I do not think that he expects much attention being paid to his suggestion for provision being made for shutting out the deaf and the dumb. Shri Kamath : It exists in England. *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 28th May 1951, pp. 9564-70.

682 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: It is true that it exists in England but I think we can very safely leave it to our electorate to see that this Parliament is not constituted of the deaf, the dumb and the maimed and that we have people here who are physically fit to hear, to speak and to move about. Some Members have said that we have not included in our disqualification clause persons like blackmarketers and so on. I think that was a point made by Prof. K. T. Shah. With regard to that all that I would like to say is that in making a law it is not enough to pursue an ideal: It is very necessary to see that the ideal must be a practical one. And I do not think that my Friend Prof. K. T. Shah has applied his mind to the practical side of giving effect to some of the idealistic theories that he has propounded with regard to this clause. Another point was with regard to disqualifications arising out of offences and sentences passed for certain crimes. With regard to that it is possible to take three different positions. One position is this that punishment for a crime is enough of a punishment and that it should not involve any further disqualification for standing as a Member for Parliament. I think that is one view which can be taken. The other view that can be taken is this that we should have a disqualification attached not to the punishment but to the nature of the offence, whether it involves moral turpitude or does not involve moral turpitude. That is the second view that one can take. The third view is the view that is taken in this Bill. This view has been adopted in this country ever since elections began. I do not know of any period when we had a provision in our law saying that although a man has committed an offence and has been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period he shall not incur any disqualification. Right or wrong, that is the law that we have adopted throughout. Consequently there has been no departure so far as this Bill is concerned. We are not introducing anything that is new. We are merely adopting what has already been in existence. Sardar Sochet Singh: What about heavy fines such as Rs. 50,000?

683PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Deshmukh: May I know, Sir, under what provision so many of the Congress people who went to jail and were convicted were able to stand and how their disqualification was removed ? Dr. Ambedkar: The disqualification was removed by the Governor-General. In some cases the time expired and in some cases he was empowered to issue an order to remove the disqualification. That is the second point. With regard to the other points that have been raised about public company directors, etc. I think it is unnecessary for me to defend the clause as it stands. All those points were raised at the various meetings where these questions were considered and ultimately the Committee came to the conclusion that the clause should stand as it has emerged from the midst of that Committee, and I, therefore, do not propose to go at any length with regard to the question. Shri Sondhi: Co-operative Society. Dr. Ambedkar: I am coming to that. Shri J. R. Kapoor: There was no definite decision in the informal meeting with regard to ............ Dr. Ambedkar: I do not propose to go into the details of what happened at the informal meeting, because we are not supposed to disclose what happened there. Shri J. R. Kapoor: The quantum of financial interest in a limited company ............ Dr. Ambedkar: Ultimately, as I said, this is how the clause emerged. With regard to the question of co-operative societies, I do not wish to commit myself nor should I be understood to have enunciated a legal proposition to which I would be bound for all times; but it does seem to me that a co-operative society is incorporated under a separate law and, therefore, as we are referring to a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, ‘co-operative societies’ in my present judgment would appear to be excluded.