Vol. 15 · pages 701–705

684 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Now, I come to the question about the lawyers. I do not know whether my Friend, Mr. Chaudhuri has gone ( An hon. Member: He is here). There are two different questions that have been put. The question that has been put by Mr. Chaudhuri is this: There are many people, lawyers, I mean, who are engaged by the various Governments to be their Government pleaders ; either they are paid a salary or they are paid a retainer and for every case that they do, they are paid a certain amount of money according to rates prescribed. He wants that a Government Pleader who has been engaged by a Government as its lawyer should not be disqualified from being a Member of the Legislature. As one of our friends here has referred to the matter, a lawyer who is a Government Pleader has been held long long before to be a person holding an office of profit. That seems to me to conclude the matter and if we wish, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Article 102 of the Constitution, to remove the disqualification, then there must be some good ground for saying that a Government pleader may be excluded. I do not think that my hon. Friend, Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri has adduced any argument. He has only appealed, I believe, to my sympathy and to my professional interest in the lawyers (Interruption). Well I am not going to commit any kind of indiscretion or illegality for the purpose of helping my own profession. The other question that was raised was by my hon. Friend, Mr. Khandubhai Desai. His complaint has taken me by surprise, I must say. His complaint was that there were many lawyer Members of Parliament who appear before the different members of Government for their clients and charge fees, and that that also happens in the local legislatures. I say I am completely surprised at it because a lawyer has the right to practice in a court of law and I do not know whether there is any law which says that a Minister in the administration of a department is a court. Therefore, a lawyer cannot insist upon exercising the constitutional right that has been given to him to practice his profession, to go before a Minister and obtain a hearing. If any Ministers in the Government of India—they will forgive me—are permitting

685PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES lawyers to appear before them, it seems to me that they are acting contrary to the provisions of law. If our Ministers were to observe the common rule that they are not courts and therefore they will not hear any lawyer, I think the practice which has been referred to by my hon. friend Mr. Khandubhai Desai will completely disappear. Mr. Chairman: Is there any such practice ? The Prime Minister (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru): I have never heard of this practice or of any instance. I would like it to be stated where this has taken place and when. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know. That is what Mr. Khandubhai Desai has said. The Minister of Works, Production and Supply (Shri Gadgil): On the other hand, the complaint has been that some of us have refused audience to lawyers. Dr. Ambedkar: That is the proper thing. Shri Hussain Imam: Have any lawyer Member of Parliament been refused audience by the Hon. Ministers ? Shri Jawaharlal Nehru : So far as I know, there has been no case of lawyers appearing before the Ministers as lawyers. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know what that is : but this is what he said. I think that matter can be regulated in the manner I have suggested. Therefore, no legal provision of that sort is necessary. I now come to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend Pandit Kunzru. He wants to drop the words “disloyalty to the State”. To some extent, I accept his argument that the wording “disloyalty to the State” is not a very precise phrase. What does it mean ? It has nowhere been defined. But the point is this. When the Select Committee discussed this matter, they were considering two different categories of servants of the State. One was the personnel of the civil services ; they were also considering the army personnel. In

686 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES their judgment it was possible for an army officer to do an act which may undermine the security of the State, or may prove to be an act of disloyalty to the State and he may have been dismissed on that account. They did not want to confine the restriction to corruption of civil servants. They also wanted to extend the same provisions to any act done by a military officer. I admit that it has not been possible to use a precise phrase. But I would like to say this that there is sufficient protection in one part of clause 7, where the question whether one has been in fact dismissed for corrupt practices or for disloyalty has been left to be decided by the Election Commission. I should submit that if the Election Commissioner is an independent officer and we have every hope and right to believe that he shall be an independent officer—I think in sub-clause (3) there is enough protection against any kind of misuse of the provisions contained in the earlier part of clause 7. I do not think that there is any point which was made by any hon. Member which calls for explanation and with which I have not dealt in the course of my reply. Shri Kamath: I must bring to your notice Sir, a slight lapse on the part of Dr. Ambedkar whereby he transformed Mr. Chaudhuri into a woman by calling him Rohini, the name of a woman. I hope the name will be correctly put in the official reports. Rohitkumar is a man’s name. Mr. Chairman: Order, order. Mr. Kamath: This is a serious matter, Sir. Dr. Ambedkar: What did I say ? Mr. Kamath: You said, Rohini. Dr. Ambedkar: That is the name by which I call him. Mr. Kamath : He is Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri and not Rohini. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not think he has misunderstood me. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: No. Dr. Ambedkar: He would refuse to misunderstand. I am sure.

687PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Ch. Ranbir Singh : In view of the fact that the Hon. Minister for Law has just expressed that co-operative societies may not be covered by the Public Companies Act, and as far as my information goes, I am definite that cooperative societies are registered under a different Act, may I know whether the shareholders of co-operative societies which hold contracts under any Government will be disqualified for contesting the elections or not ? Several hon. Members: Not disqualified. Mr. Chairman: I would like to know from the hon. Members who have moved amendments if any of them want to withdraw their amendments or they want me to put them to the House. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: Sir, the matter of co-operative societies requires a little clarification. Dr. Ambedkar says that co-operative societies were not excluded. What is the meaning of the word ‘exclusion’ ; we do not understand. Will the director of............ Dr. Ambedkar: There is no disqualification. None of the ‘ disqualifications would apply to them. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: I beg for leave to withdraw the amendments. Amendments were by leave withdrawn. *Clause 9. (Disqualification for membership of electoral colleges.) Amendment made: In clause 9, for the words “subject to any disqualification for membership of Parliament under any of the provisions of this Act” substitute the following: “disqualified for being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament under any of the provisions of article 102.” —[Dr. Ambedkar] *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 28th May 1951, pp. 9578-80.

688 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Chairman: The question is: “That clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. Clause 9 as amended, was added to the Bill. Clause 122. (Major corrupt practices ) Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: (i) In part (a) (i) of the proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 122, after the words “injury of any kind”, insert the words “including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community”. (ii) For sub-clause (6) of clause 122, substitute the following sub-clause : “(6) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the connivance of a candidate or his agent for the conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under section 23 or a place fixed under subsection ( 1) of section 27 for the poll: Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint costs for the purposes of conveying him or them to or from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if the vehicle or vessel so hired is not propelled by mechanical power: Provided further that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or any tramcar or railway carriage by any elector at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause. Explanation.—In this clause the expression “vehicle” means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise, and whether used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise.” Mr. Chairman: Amendments moved. Dr. Ambedkar: I also beg to move: (iii) For the Explanation to part (8) of clause 122, substitute the following: “Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause— (a) a person serving under the Government of India shall not include any person who has been declared by the Central Government to be a person to whom the provisions of this clause shall not apply;