Vol. 15 · pages 736–740

717PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES disqualification if anybody were to take the matter to the President, who will, of course interpret the law at the instance of the Law Ministry. The President will naturally consult Dr. Ambedkar and I am sure he will not give a different interpretation to the one that he has given now. In the course of his speech Dr. Ambedkar did not refer to my amendment—probably he has not seen it. You will see that I have given in my amendment the names of twenty-nine committee on which Members have served. I do not know whether some may have received fees higher than the ones announced by the Finance Ministry. At any rate, I am not prepared to accept Dr. Ambedkar’s interpretation, when there are higher authorities to interpret the Constitution. *Shri Karunakara Menon (Madras): There are certain committees not formed by the Ministers as such but by the Government: for instance, the Central Arecanut Committee which is a committee constituted by the Government. The members of that Committee, among whom are Members of Parliament also, are nominated. What is to be done with respect to that Committeee ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I was myself on a similar Committe : the Indian Central Cotton Committee. But here the wording is “who holds any office of profit under the Government of India or in a State Government”. All these fall under the interpretation of Dr. Ambedkar of what an office of profit is. Even if you don’t agree, then as stated in the statement of objects and reasons it is a doubtful point. I cannot say definitely that such a membership is not an office of profit, and therefore it is certainly doubtful. Now what would happen to our new Parliamentary Secretaries ? Dr. Ambedkar: Why do you want to raise problems which are not there ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: In clause 2 I find only Ministers can hold offices of profit. What about the Deputy Ministers ? * P.D., Vol. 14, Part II, 7th August 1951, pp. 57-71.

718 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: They are included. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: By a stretch of the language you may include Deputy Ministers but what will happen to Parliamentary Secretaries ? An Hon. Member: They are honorary. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I was an honorary Adviser; just as in my case one rupee a year appeared, in their case also it will happen. What I say is that if you want to take full advantage of knowledge or experience you should include a list of those offices holding of which does not disqualify a Member of Parliament. Supposing a Member having a special knowledge of some subject is appointed on a committee but if that office is not declared under this Bill then he will not be justified in accepting it. As between him and his services on the one side and this disqualification on the other, the country will be deprived of his services. Therefore we will be well advised in holding up this Bill, or at least in accepting some amendments grounded on these reasons which I am submitting. Otherwise it will mean that these five categories are exempted and the rest of us will again have to go to Dr. Ambedkar ............... Dr. Ambedkar: I have no ill-will. Shri Sidhva: He is generous. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I know it is not the Law Ministry which has initiated this measure, but I congratulate them for the manner in which they discharge their duties because they agree that so far as these persons are concerned they should be helped. But does Dr. Ambedkar mean to say that every time there is a case like this we should go to them and ask them for a favour ? So, while congratulating him for his Bill, I want him to include a further provision in the Bill that if such-and-such a principle is applied the disqualification will not apply. I would therefore respctfully request him, so far as Article 102 is concerned, to bring forward a good measure in which the various offices of profit are defined, at least to the extent that such-and-such offices will not disqualify the holder, and also saying that if the emoluments

719PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES do not exceed those of a Member of Parliament for attending the session it will not be taken as an office of profit. If we specify the names of the various committees and commissions I know a very large number of them will be covered but all the same the kind of a committee referred to by Mr. Kamath will not come in. I am a very great criminal in this respect. I was also a member of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. First of all they gave us fees. We told them that in the matter of rehabilitation work we did not want any fees, they said, ‘No, you are entitled’. They gave us Rs. 50 per meeting whereas Members of Parliament are entitled to only Rs. 40 per day. (Now the fees has been made into Rs. 40.) So, they asked us to refund the amount paid to us for meetings for which we had drawn from Parliament. We said, ‘All right’. After the refund was made, they came to the conclusion that we were entitled to the money which was refunded back to us. We never asked for it, but when it came we accepted it. Dr. Ambedkar: That shows the generosity of Government. The Minister of Education (Maulana Azad): I suppose they did not ask again for the money to be refunded ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The difficulty now is this. Even if we did not accept this money and gave it back, we would have come within the mischief of this rule if the office is regarded as an office of profit, because it is not the getting of the mony that matters but it is the office carrying that emolument. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it not an autonomous body created by a statute ? Therefore, is it an office of profit under the Government ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: It is an autonomous body. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Therefore, the amount was refunded to you. Dr. Ambedkar: If you will kindly allow me to explain, I think it will cut short the discussion. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: But you must explain the following three points: (1) Rehabilitation Adviser;

720 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (2) Rehabilitation Finance Corporation; (3) General Committees. Then there are other committees of which some members have told me just now. For instance, some Members have been serving as members of Committees appointed by the Manager of a railway system, or as Presidents of Chambers of Commerce. They are to that extent holding offices of profit under the Government. Will they all come in ? I want that this question should be beyond any doubt. If only five categories are mentioned, we shall have only two courses open : either to see that these persons are not exempted and they remain like us ; or that we are also exempted like them. I humbly submit that this House will not be justified in passing this Bill as it is. Either accept Mr. Sidhva’s amendment that on a certain principle all those Members should be exempted and include the Rehabilitation Advisor also in this category. Or lay down a principle which may be of general application and the holders of those posts may be regarded as not coming within the mischief of this rule. What Dr. Ambedkar has done is according to the exigencies of the situation as he understood them then. But now, so many new things have been brought to his notice and he will not be justified in getting this measure passed without including the other committees. So far as the question of disqualification is concerned, . I submit that none of these persons has really incurred the disqualification, because none of these persons understood nor they had the full knowledge that as a matter of fact they were incurring a disqualification by accepting that post. When this is the position, they ought not to be taken as having incurred the disqualification. In regard to past things, it should be stated that those offices were offices in regard to which no disqualification was attached. Unless this is done, this indemnity Bill will not be an indemnity Bill, because you are not indemnifying persons, you are indemnifying offices. If you make the individuals also immune, then you would have done the right thing. That is my submssion. Dr. Ambedkar: From the point of view of members of Parliament this Bill is certainly a very delicate Bill and I would begin by reminding hon. Members that they should

721PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES be very careful about becoming over-enthusiastic in the matter of attending the provisions of this Bill. My hon. friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava was the only member who touched upon this aspect of the matter, though very briefly. That was a point that ought to have been greately emphasized. The reason why the Constitution incorporated this provision in Article 102 was a very substantial one. It was intended to protect the independence of Parliament and consequently Members of Parliament should be very jealous in extending the provisions of Article 192, so that the public outside may not criticise them for engaging in a certain kind of—I hope Members will forgive me—jobbery. We have got to look at it from that point of view. It is quite true that whenever a Member is appointed to a committee he is doing a certain service to the country. An Hon. Member: Is it jobbery ? Dr. Ambedkar: It has all aspects about it. From the point of view of the Member, it is no doubt a service that he renders. From the point of view of the opposition, if there is one, it might have another aspect. The opposition might very legitimately contend that the Government is extending the provisions of the office of profit rule in order to collect a lot of people to support it whenever support is wanted. Therefore, as I said, while there are difficulties in the provision contained in Article 102 and they should be solved in order that no serious handicap will be placed in the way of Government having the advice of members on committees whenever Members of Parliament are appointed to such committees and also in order that Members of Parliament may not be debarred from offering service to Government through committees,—while we have to do this, we have to be careful to see that the provisions are not made a temple, the doors of which are very wide and where anybody can enter. I must, I think, utter this caution in the interest of the House. Subject to that, I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about what the Bill does and also the basis of the Bill. I am very sorry to say that I did not present my case clearly, because Members of Parliament have not