Vol. 15 · pages 731–735

712 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES English law, namely that if the law has declared that the office is an office of profit, then, irrespective of the question whether the Member draws the salary attached to that office, he should be disqualified. That is the rule under the English Constitution ; certain offices have been declared by law to be offices of profit. There may be a certain Member of Parliament who may accept that particular office and at the same time refuse the profits of that office, but the fact that he has refused the profits of the office does not save him from the rule of office of profit. Government thinks that that is quite an undesirable thing; being purely technical we need not adopt it. What the Government has done with regard to defining what is an office of profit is a very simple thing; they have decided the basis for determining whether any particular office is an office of profit or not. Recently the Finance Department has made rules for the payment to nonMembers (that is, persons who are not Members of parliament) for work done on various committees. I do not know whether the hon. Members are aware of, or have seen the notification issued by the Finance Department. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh): We are not aware. Shri Sondhi (Punjab): It has not been circulated. Dr. Ambedkar: Well, I think they could get that. Anyhow it is a very simple thing. The allowances which are payable under the Notification (or office Memorandum as they call it) of the Finance Department for members who are working on committees and in other offices and are not Members of Parliament, are these : Travelling allowance is paid at the rate of 1½ rail fare if he is travelling by rail and 1¼ fare if he is travelling by air. Then a daily allowance which is paid at the rate of Rs. 12-8-0 per day in Delhi, Rs. 15 in Calcutta and Bombay, the maximum rate being Rs. 20. Now if there is any Member of Parliament who is appointed to a committee, and if he is not paid more than what is prescribed in the Office Memorandum a summary of which I have just now given to the House, then he will not be

713PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES regarded as a member holding an office of profit. There will be no disqualification because he is treated on the same footing as a person who is not a Member of Parliament. But if any person who is a Member of Parliament and who is appointed to any particular committee by the Government, receives something more than what is stated in the Finance Department Memorandum then the question will arise whether that person is holding an office of profit or not. Shri Sondhi : Supposing he is entitled to more but he does not draw more ? Dr. Ambedkar: That is a case I am not able to imagine. As I said, the position is this. If a Member of Parliament who is appointed to any committee is paid nothing in excess of what the Finance Ministry has ruled as the rates of payment to non-Members, then there is no case at all for disqualification. Every Member is free to be appointed to any committee that the Government thinks fit. But if anything more is paid, then the question will arise as to whether such a Member is holding an office of profit or not. With regard to such exceptional cases the position which the Government has taken is this, that they will not lay down any general rule but they will consider each case separately as and when it arises. Government may, at the time of making the nomination, state then and there that notwithstanding the fact that the allowances payable are in excess of the rates settled by the Finance Ministry, the Member shall not incur any disability. Or, after several cases have occurred they may generally examine the cases and bring in a Bill of the kind that I have brought in, namely, to exempt certain offices which may under the rules lead to disability. I think, Sir, that I have given the House all the information that is necessary in order to enable it to appreciate the reasons why Government have thought it fit to bring in this Bill. I think I have also given the basic principles which Government have had in mind in dealing with matters arising out of Article 102. Mr. Deputy Spaker: Motion moved: “That the Bill to declare certain offices of profit not to disqualify their holders for being Members of Parliament, be taken into consideration.”

714 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Sidhva: Sir, from the speech of the Hon. Minister in moving this Bill the doubts in the minds of hon. Members have not been removed. Rather, they have increased after the latter portion of his speech. He said that if a Member has drawn more than what the Finance Ministry has settled, it is a case for disqualification. The question may not be serious for Dr. Ambedkar. He is a Minister and has not served on any committe. But nearly 50 per cent. of the Members of this House have been serving on several committees. They were not “induced” to serve on them as he stated. They were requested to serve on them. They were obliged to serve on . them. They never knew that this would subject them to any disqualification. Therefore, this matter requires serious consideration and I would say more sympathetic consideration at the hands of Government. I have given notice of an amendment which leaves no doubt about this matter. I want that all the committees on which the Members were asked to serve should be incorporated in this Bill. Dr. Ambedkar has expounded his own viewpoint that those who drew fees as settled by the Finance Ministry will not be disqualified. But we do not know what will be the interpretation of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. No doubt, Dr. Ambedkar is one of the legal luminaries. He was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution and yet the Supreme Court and the High Courts have interpreted the various Articles of the Constitution differently from what he had told us in the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, I am not going to accept his interpretation. His interpretation is of no value to us. He must not give us his conjectures. If he wants the Members to remain in this House, if he wants them to contest the elections, let him be honest about it and say that serving on these committees will not disqualify them. According to his own statement, those who receive more than the prescribed rates of payment should make some statement in the nomination paper and then Government will consider his case. Was that the idea when these Members were requested—I repeat, they were requested not induced—to serve on these committees ? Had they known that they would incur any disqualification by serving on these committees, they would not have served on them.

715PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Deputy Speaker: The courts do not seem to have any jurisdiction in this matter. Under the Constitution, the matter has to be referred to the President, who will decide it in consultation with the Election Commissioner. Dr. Ambedkar: May I enlighten my hon. friend and tell him how exactly the question arose ? Some Members of Parliament reported certain cases to the Speaker. They said that in their opinion certain Members were holding offices of profit. It is the Speaker who referred the matter to the President and it is the President who asked us to regularise this matter. We have not taken the initiative ourselves. Shri Sidhva : I know that. But my argument was different. I was referring to the fact that only four categories have been mentioned by the Hon. Minister while there are a number of other Members who have been serving on various committes. According to the Hon. Minister, these persons may not be disqualified but according to the Supreme Court they may be disqualified. Mr. Deputy Speaker : How does the Supreme Court come in here ? Shri Sidhva: Well, it is the President. Even if it is a matter to be decided by the President, I do not want any ambiguity to prevail. Supposing the President interprets the case differently and says, “Yes, you are disqualified” ? What then ? The Hon. Minister was right enough when he said that it would have dislocated the administration if these Members have been asked to resign. He also stated that these Members never knew that they would be disqualified under the new Constitution. These were honest intentions, I believe. So, why not embody them in this legislation ? I have mentioned nearly twenty-five committes and I hope all the other hon. Members would press for their inclusion. Dr. Ambedkar: I am sure you have omitted to mention some. Shri Sidhva: You add them, I will be only too glad. You should come to our rescue rather than do otherwise. Why should 50 per cent. of the Members of this House run the

716 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES risk of disqualification ? I want that Government should reconsider this matter. They should include a clause whereby all members who have served on all or any of the committees appointed by the Ministeries will not be considered disqualified. Or, they should include all the names of the committees. I have given two alternatives. I see no reason why the Hon. Minister should not accept one of them. Why should he leave it to somebody else, even if it be the Prsident ? He considers the receipt of fees as equivalent to holding an office of profit. I may tell him that in the Industrial Finance Corporation there are Members of Parliament who under the rules prescribed by the Finance Ministry draw Rs. 50. In some cases they drew Rs. 75. Subsequently, they agreed to Rs. 40. This is a glaring instance. They are and have been drawing Rs. 40. Will they be disqualified ? Is it fair if they are disqualified ? They were asked in writing, they were requested by the Ministry concerned to serve on this Corporation and they accepted. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Punjab): They refunded some of the fees and those fees have been returned to them again. Shri Sidhva: Therefore, this matter should not be treated lightly. I am very glad that Government have brought forward this Bill. It was before this House during the last Session. In fact, we wanted it to be considered along with the Bill dealing with Deputy Ministers and Ministers of State. When the new Constitution came into force we were given an assurance that the Ministers’ question would be taken up first and that the Members’ case would be considered sympathetically separately. Now this Bill should have been passed during the last Session— nearly five months back. I am very glad that it has found the first place at least now. It is not so simple a measure as Dr. Ambedkar has represented it to be. I would submit to him that the intention of Government is very clear. They do not desire that anybody should court displeasure or disqualification for no fault of theirs. If that is so, let it be made quite clear in the Bill itself. From Dr. Ambedkar’s own statement it is quite clear that some of the Members will automatically be considered for