Vol. 15 · pages 716–720

699PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Clauses 132, 139 and 150 Mr. Speaker: Then there are clauses 132, 139 and 150. There are no amendments to these, so I will put them together. The question is: “That clauses 132, 139 and 150 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. Clauses 132, 139 and 150 were added to the Bill. Clause 167.—(Power to make rules ) Mr. Speaker: Now there is the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to clause 167. Dr. Ambedkar: I have moved it already. There was no criticism about it and I should like briefly to explain my position with regard to that With regard to this clause two or three questions were raised. One was with regard to an officer who has been transferred from the constituency in which his name had appeared in the register to some other place. The question was: what provision was going to be made for his voting ? The second question was with regard to a candidate who goes from one State to another State for the purpose of seeking election. There also, the same question was raised. Finally, there was the question with regard to a candidate who is moving in his own constituency for the purpose of canvassing and who is not present or who is not likely to be present at the polling booth where he is entitled to vote. I asked the draftsman; the draftsman thinks that it is unnecessary to make a provision in this particular clause in my amendment because there is ample room in the general provision contained in clause 167 for making rules to cover all these cases. Therefore, it will be possible for the Election Commissioner under the rules to deal with these cases by rules and it is unnecessary to make any amendment here. Shri Ethirajulu Naidu: I would like to mention clause 59 which deals with this particular matter. Would the Law Minister consider the advisability of making an amendment to clause 59 ? That clause refers to, “Special Procedure for voting by certain classes of persons.”

700 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: No, that is a separate clause altogether pertaining to those who are outside the country. Shri Kamath: A reply is due to the amendment moved by me regarding the rules to be laid before Parliament. Dr. Ambedkar: With regard to that the position is this. As everybody in the House knows, we are trying to do our level best to have the elections in November-December. Now, if the procedure suggested by my hon. friend Mr. Kamath, that the rules shall be placed on the table of Parliament and that they shall not have operative force and until Parliament has approved them, is adopted, it is quite clear that we may not be able to achieve the purpose we have in view, namely that the elections should take place in November-December. On that ground alone it seems to me rather difficult to accept the amendment that he has moved. But if he would be content with the assurance that Government will place the rules before Parliament, I am prepared to give that undertaking. Shri Kamath: After they are placed before Parliament, will Parliament be competent to modify them ? Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot give a categorical answer to that also—I feel some difficulty. It is this. Supposing, for instance, Government does take action under any rules that are framed and subsequently Parliament alters it. Then, what would happen to action already taken under the rules as framed ? Therefore it would be very difficult to tie down the hands of Government by any such condition as Mr. Kamath proposes. Shri J. R. Kapoor: May I move an amendment to clause 167. I beg to move: After part (g) of sub-clause (2) of clause 187, insert the following new part (gg): Mr. Speaker: Order, order. What is the No. of the amendment. Shri J. R. Kapoor: I gave notice of it some time back. Mr. Speaker: I am not waiving any further notice. Shri J. R. Kapoor: I am inclined to think that this may perhaps be accepted by the Hon. Minister.

701PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar: If it relates to contract, it has already been defined in the Contract Act. Mr. Speaker: Is Government prepared to accept the amendment ? Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot accept any amendment now. Shri Kamath : If my amendment is negatived will it mean that Government will not place the rules before the House ? Dr. Ambedkar: I have already said that Government will always be prepared to place it before the House. Shri Kamath: If that assurance is given, I will not press my amendment. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kamath wishes to have leave of the House to withdraw his amendment. The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Speaker: Now I will put Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment. The question is: 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 ;”. The motion was adopted. Mr. Speaker: The question is : “That clause 167, as amended, stand part of the Bill. The motion was adopted. Clause 167, as amended, was added to the Bill. New Clause 34A *Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I beg to move : After clause 34, insert the following new clause: “34A. (1) Any candidate aggrieved by an order accepting or rejecting the nomination paper of the candidate shall be entitled to file an appeal to the District Judge of the District in whose jurisdiction *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9607-10.

702 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the scrutiny of the nomination papers took place within four days of the passing of the order. The copy of the order shall accompany the petition of appeal if obtained or may be filed before the appeal is heard. (2) The District Judge shall follow the procedure prescribed for hearing the appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure Act of 1908 and pass his final orders within fifteen days of the date of order cither accepting or rejecting the nomination paper. (3) The District Judge shall forthwith send a copy of his order to the Returning Officer who shall immediately publish the same as prescribed under section 36. (4) The decision of the District Judge shall be final and shall not be questioned subsequently by any election petition or otherwise.” In the original Bill this was the proposal of Dr. Ambedkar himself that so far as nomination is concerned it ought to be finalised and no election to petition should be allowed on the basis that at the time of nomination no proper order of acceptance or rejection was made. This is in keeping with the general sense of the House also. All the Members perhaps without exception want this, so that after the polling takes place and a person goes through the election no question may arise when the nomination may again be questioned. Before so many expenses are incurred and everything is gone through we should see that the nomination is finalised. I have therefore given a set of rules under clause 34A whereby the nomination may be finalised and there may be no election petition in regard to the proper acceptance or rejection of a nomination. Dr. Ambedkar : I am very sorry that I have to oppose this amendment. As my friend, Pandit Bhargava said, it was I who first set in motion the idea of dividing the election into two parts, one relating to nomination and the other relating to actual poll. The Select Committee, however, without considering the matter came to the conclusion that that procedure should not be adopted. They found that there may not be sufficient time for a candidate whose nomination has been challenged on the ground that he is disqualified to produce evidence within the stated time in order to get a decision in his favour. At this very meeting, I think, Members will remember that the Chief Election Commissioner was

703PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES present; he was specially called to discuss this matter and he expressed himself opposed to this idea of having the nomination finalized before the election started. Thereafter I have also consulted him and he is absolutely of the opinion that elections would be delayed considerably if this procedure was adopted. Now, we are all agreed that the elections should take place in November-December, no matter what happens, and as the responsibility is cast upon the Election Commission to carry through this programme, it is rather very difficult for me to override the view that the Chief Election Commissioner has taken on that ground. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the amendment, but I should like to say one thing to the House, namely that this law which we are making is not a law to be for ever. If we are not able to adopt this particular amendment for the present election, there is nothing to prevent us from having it introduced in this Act at a later stage, so that the new procedure may be followed in the next election. This law can be amended, added and substracted from. For the moment in view of the fact that we are all determined to have the elections in November-December, it seems quite impossible to introduce any such measure which may produce a dilatory effect. Mr. Speaker : Do I put the amendment to the House then ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: My amendment may be put to the House. Mr. Speaker: Amendment moved. The motion was negatived. Clause 1.—(Short Title ) Prof. K. T. Shah: I beg to move: Re-number clause 1 as sub-clause (1) of that clause and add the following sub-clause as sub-clause (2): “(2) This Act shall be translated into the principal languages of India as prescribed by the Constitution, and shall be published in every State of the Union in its regional language or languages as well as in the national language of the Union and English, within six weeks of its enactment into law: