Vol. 15 · pages 726–730

SECTION VI TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES 35. Parliament—Prevention of Disqualification Bill 709-740 36. Assam (Alteration of Boundaries) Bill ... 741-760 37. Notaries Bill ... 761-767 38. Resolution regarding necessity for an All India Bar ... 768-772 39. Conduct of a Member of Parliament ... 773-785 40. Select Committee Meetings ... 786-789 41. Motions regarding delimitations of Constituencies of Order ... 790-814 42. Business of the House ... 815-820 43. Dr. Ambedkar’s letter of Resignation ... 821-830

709PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (35) PARLIAMENT—PREVENTION OF DISQUALIFICATION BILL * The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move : “That the Bill to declare certain offices of profit not to dsqualify their holders for being members of Parliament, be taken into consideration.” Sir, this Bill is really an Act of indemnity for certain persons who, if the Bill was not brought into operation, would become disqualified for being Members of Parliament under the provisions of Article 102 of the Constitution, which says that if any person were to hold an office of profit, he would be disqualified for being a Member of Parliament. Unfortunately it so happened that there are Members of Parliament, who for reasons which I will very briefly refer to did come under the provisions of Article 102. For the reasons which I am going to submit to the House, Government feels that it is only right that the disqualification should be removed by a law made by Parliament. With regard to the question of the office of profit it is necessary for the House to remember that this provision is a very ancient one and has been imcorporated in the various Acts of the Government of India that have laid down the Constitution of this country. To begin only with the Act of 1935, there existed section 26 which related to matters regarding holders of office of profit under the Government. Since the federal part of the Act of 1935 did not come into operation that section did not apply to the Central Legislature as was then existing, but section 69 which was the corresponding provision in the Provincial part did apply to the Provincial Legislatures. As the House knows, in 1946 a Constituent Assembly was convened for the purpose of drafting the Constitution. In that * P.D., Vol. 14, Part II, 7th August 1951, pp. 34-40.

710 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Constituent Assembly it was necessary to bring together, for the purpose of seeking the best advice possible on the matter of making the Constitution, persons who were qualified to give their advice on such an important matter, and it was felt not desirable to have this limitation being imposed on the membership of the Constituent Assembly, and what happened was that consequently the Government of India Act had to be adapted to make it suitable to the new circumstances, and this provision was dropped from the adapted Government of India Act, 1935. Consequently it was open for any Member to become a Member of the Constituent Assembly and, as the House also knows, as the Constituent Assembly also operated and functioned as the Dominion Legislature it became open for persons, even though they were holding an office of profit, to continue as Members of Parliament. That being the position what happened was this, that certain Members who were Members of the Constituent Assembly and who on account of the fact that they were Members of the Constituent Assembly were also Members of the Dominition Legislature continued to hold offices of profit without any kind of Constitutional ban being imposed upon them, and once they were holders of offices of profit under the adapted Government of India Act, 1935, they continued to hold those offices even after the Constitution has come into operation on the 26th January 1950. Of course it was possible for Government to inform those Members that now that the law is changed and an office of profit has become a disqualification, it was in their interest to relinquish those offices which put them under this ban. But, obviously, Members of Parliament would realise that that would have created a great deal of administrative difficulty. Members had already taken upon themselves certain responsibilities as members of commissions and members of committees, and to ‘ be told in the midst of their work that they must now quit and the committee or commissions must be so reconstituted that every member of those bodies was free from this ban, would have created a great deal of difficulty from the point of view of administration. Consequently they were permitted to continue to function in their offices notwithstanding the

711PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES fact that the ban contained in Article 102 had come into operation. That is one justification why this Bill has been brought in : that if many of those members of committees and commissions had been asked to quit it would have created great administrative difficulty. In view of the fact, therefore, that it was in the interest of the Government to permit these Members to continue in their offices and discharge their functions, it is undoubtedly the obligation of the Government to remove the disqualification which they were in effect induced to incur. That is one reason why this Bill has been brought in. 12 NOON A second reason why this Bill has been brought in is because many members who look offices after the 26th January 1950 (when the Constitution came into operation), according to the submissions that they have made were unaware, or rather unconscious that the Constitution did contain such a provision. According to the submissions that they have made it was a case of misunderstanding : they did not realise what exactly was happening. And it seems to me that although there is a general rule of law that ignorance of law is no excuse, in a matter of this kind we must accept the bona fides of Members who have submitted that they did not, in fact, know that they were incurring a disability of this sort. If hon. Members were to analyse the categories of persons and offices which have been mentioned in the Bill, they will realise that the Members who are given this indemnity fall in either of the two cateories : one category is of those who were holding the offices long before the Constitution came into existence ; the second category is of those people who believed in a bona fide manner that they were not incurring any disqualification under Article 102. That is the basis on which the Bill has been constructed. I might also inform the House as to the principles on which the Government is acting so far as this Bill is concerned and so far as the general principle of disqualification arising out of an office of profit is concerned. The Government takes the view that it is not desirable to apply the teachnical rule of