Vol. 15 · pages 746–750

727PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES and it is on that basis of remuneration we have come to the conclusion as to which particular committee requires exemption, which does not require exemption—it is perfectly possible for Parliament or for Government to change the basis of that remuneration. And if they change the basis of the remuneration the general proposition would create so many difficulties for us, because the general proposition would be at variance with the actualities of the case. It is therefore proper, as I have always stated, for Parliament to retain this power in its hands. After all, the Government cannot declare that so and so is disqualified. Nobody has a right to go to the Supreme Court to say that a certain Member is disqualified. The whole matter, ultimately, is in the hands of Parliament, and we want to leave the matter in the hands of Parliament, so that whenever a case arises Parliament may decide. whether this is a case which comes under disqualification or this is a case which, if it does come under disqualification, should be indemnified. I think it is much better that the matter should be left in the way in which I wish to leave it, rather than to tighten it up so that nobody at an opportune moment may loosen the knot. Shri Kamath : Is it not ultimately a question of privilege of the House ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not want to come to that, whether it is a privilege or not. But it is certainly a Constitutional provision which Parliament is required to obey, and Parliament will be doing a great deal of wrong to the Constitution if it does not follow the provisions of Article 102 when ultimately, as I say, the Government, and the Bill, is prepared and wants as a matter of fact to leave the whole matter in the hands of Parliament to decide each particular case. Mr. Sidhva had some amendment. But can anybody in this House tell me right now what are the likely offices or committees which the Government might hereafter create ? I cannot imagine such a thing right now if somebody were to ask me a question “Tell me what are the committees”. If you want to enter all these in the Bill, you must know and define them. Nobody can anticipate what committees are likely to be appointed.

728 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Therefore, when Parliament appoints a committee, or when Government proposes that a certain Member of Parliament be appointed to a certain committee, it is then that the Member concerned may rise and ask the Prime Minister or the Minister in charge of the Ministry who is appointing the Committee to let him know right then what is going to be his position, whether he will be disqualified or not, and he can demand from the Minister an assurance or a contemporary resolution to be accepted by Parliament that “in this particular case any Member appointed to the committee shall not be deemed to be disqualified”. Shri Sondhi: If it is a Government committee ? Dr. Ambedkar: Even then Members of Parliament must protect themselves and a Member of Parliament can protect himself by asking for an assurance from the Government that whatever be the other matters he shall not be deemed to be disqualified. When such an assurance is given, obviously Government cannot go behind such an assurance. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Only under Article 102 a law must be passed by Parliament declaring that office to be not one of profit. Dr. Ambedkar: We are dealing with specific case. As regards Parliament passing a general law, I do not know what that general law can do. It can, so far as I can imagine, say that whenever a Member of Parliament is appointed to a committee the members whereof receive an allowance which may be described as profit—in that very case Parliament can state as they do in England—that the appointment of the Member shall not be deemed to be an office of profit. Shri Kamath : Can we not lay down a uniform procedure ? Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot, for the simple reason that the basic allowance may change. Shri Kamath : Still we can lay down a uniform procedure. Dr. Ambedkar: It is possible for Parliament to do so. I do not know what time we have. But the next Parliament can pass a small Act saying that whenever any Member of

729PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Parliament is appointed to any committee where the allowances may be more than mere remuneration and the appointment may be regarded as an office of profit, then in the case of each appointment the Act of Parliament shall say that “this shall not be regarded as an office of profit”. That may be done in a general way. Shri Sidhva: What about the committees in which Members are now drawing more than Rs. 20 ? There are certain committees. Dr. Ambedkar: I have no idea. Shri Sidhva: That is the point to be clarified. Dr. Ambedkar : If you bring such cases to our notices we will examine them. So far as our Department is concerned we had collected all the information from all the Ministers. We examined them and found that these are the cases where the allowance exceeded the standard that we had fixed and therefore an indemnity was necessary. In other cases we found that the allowances did not offend against the basic rule and consequently no such indemnity was necessary. Shri Sidhva: What is your information ? Dr. Ambedkar: You must accept our information. Let the Member who is affected make a representation that “I am drawing more but I am not exempted”. Shri Sidhva: Why not do it here ? Dr. Ambedkar : I cannot off-hand accept your suggestion. You may accept that your facts are not correct as mine may be. Yours are the labours of a single individual. Here hundreds have examined and surely their information may be taken to be more reliable. My friend Mr. Kamath asked me something about the Assam Government Pleader. Well, I do not know but I should like to say this. Whether a Government Pleader in a Province is the holder of an office of profit or not is a matter which has been decided long long ago. So far as I remember when the Government of India Act came into operation in the Province in 1937, a ruling was given, I believe in some of the

730 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES provinces by their Advocates-General that this was an office of profit. In fact I have a case in mind where a certain Government Pleader had to resign on this account I do not know whether any such case had arisen in Assam. May be it had arisen ; may be it had not arisen. An uncharitable interpretation might suggest that a lawyer who is a Government Pleader ought to have been aware of the position. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was informed that the hon. Mr. Wajed Ali himself was the Member and he wanted an opportunity to speak. Dr. Ambedkar: If he speaks then I won’t speak. But he one day came to me—I forget the day—and asked me whether he was disqualified. I think he will agree with me that I told him he was disqualified, that that was my view, and that any Member of Parliament who is a Government Advocate in a Province was disqualified. I told him that. He said that he was very sorry and that he did not know that. Thereupon I said that there may be provision for condonation and so on and so on and told him “You better make a representation to the proper quarters”. I think he represented the matter to the Speaker, if I remember correctly, and the Speaker referred the matter to me that in view of the fact that the Member has stated definitely that he was not aware of this ruling and had continued to hold that office the Government might consider his case also for indemnity. On that basis we did include his case. That is all I have to say. Shri Kamath: The Coal Inquiry Committee was constituted after March, 1950, after the Constitution came into force. Why was this aspect of disqualification not considered at the time the Committee was constituted ? Dr. Ambedkar: Mr. Kamath, these are all very good and very nice points but as I feel Government was not very particular or very meticulous in applying Article 102 because we were working on an ad hoc basis. The whole trouble was created by the fact that so far as the Constituent Assembly

731PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES was concerned, we had abrogated this rule and we had allowed the Constituent Assembly to function also as a Legislature. There was a certain amount of mix up and confusion and consequently the Government’s attention was so to say not attracted towards this particular proposition but when the matter was brought to their notice they thought that this was the best thing that they could do in the circumstances and I hope the House will accord its support to this Bill. Dr. Pattabhi (Madras): May I invite the attention of the House to a somewhat interesting view taken by the Madras Government in regard to the question as to whether a Public Prosecutor or Government Pleader is or is not a Government servant for purpose of legislative elections. Mr. Yahia Ali, Public Prosecutor of Nellore was considered a public servant so far as election to the Legislature was concerned and the method adopted was this. He was to resign his office of Public Prosecutor so as to contest the legislative election, become a Member of the Assembly and then he was appointed by the Government to the public prosecutorship. He has done this three or four times and ultimately his troubles were put an end to by being transferred to the High Court Bench. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: Sir, may I have one information ? In part (d) you have included the office of Members of the Railway Local Advisory Committees up to 1951. Perhaps you will propose an amendment to make it 1952. My difficulty is will you bring such motions year after year in order to include annually 1952, 1953 and 1954 or you will lay down that membership of Railway Local Advisory Committees will not act as a disqualification. The other point is having now had all these different committees definitely laid down in this Bill does it not really place the President in an embarrassing position. He will now feel difficulty as the Parliament has only made mention of certain committees which will not be construed as offices of profit. If any matter is referred to him he may have a difficulty and he may have to call the Parliament even if the case is justifiable and within his competence to decide.