Vol. 15 · pages 751–755

732 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: I do not think my hon. friend need worry about the President. We make use of him for a variety of things and we have Article 392 whereby he can issue an order and we do not propose to take advantage of that in spite of the transitory situation. Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are starting another discussion after the discussion is over. I will put the motion to the House. There are other clauses and hon. Members have got ample opportunity. The question is : “That the Bill to declare certain offices of profit not to disqualify their holders for being Members of Parliament, be taken into consideration.” The motion was adopted. Clause 2.—(Prevention of disqualification etc .) Amendment made : In page 1, (i) in line 23, omit “and”; and (ii) after line 2, add: “(f) the office of members of the Enquiry Commission appointed by the Government of Assam or by the Government of West Bengal in pursuance of the Agreement made between India and Pakistan on the 8th April 1950, for any period not extending beyond the 31st day of December, 1950 ; and (g) the office of member of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal for any period not extending beyond the 1st day of April 1951.” — Dr. Ambedkar Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall go to the other amendments. Shri Kamath: As the Minister has explained the position, I am not moving 2 and 3, but No. 1 will come later on. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: In view of the statement made by Hon. Dr. Ambedkar, I do not think my amendment is necessary.

733PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES *Dr. Ambedkar: I may explain, with your permission, the point raised by hon. friend. Actually, when the Resolution was issued by the particular department concerned when they formed the Foodgrains Investigation Committee, the allowance mentioned was Rs. 20, and possibly the information supplied to the Law Ministry for the purpose of clarifying this position was that Resolution. We have acted on that Resolution. But I do now hear that the Food Ministry have changed that rule and have allowed the members to draw something more. But, the basis of our action is the Resolution. Shri Sidhva: What will happen to that member ? Dr. Ambedkar: My friend Mr. Sidhva does not seem to understand the point. Unless the President issues an order that a member is disqualified, the Member can sit in the House and function. Shri Sidhva: I know that. Dr. Ambedkar: Therefore, as I said, we have been supplied with the various Resolutions passed by the Ministries constituting the committees and we have found on the basis of the Resolutions that those committees did not offend the basic rule. If further information is supplied showing that there were such cases where Members in fact drew more, it would be perfectly possible to regularise the position. Where is the difficulty ? I do not understand. Shri Himatsingka: Why not do it in a general form ? Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot do it. I must make further enquiries as to what exactly is the position. Nothing is going to be lost if this Bill is passed and another Bill brought into cover cases which actually are necessary to be covered. Shri Sidhva: How can that be ? Dr. Ambedkar: Why? I do not understand. Mr. Deputy Speaker: This can be definitely looked into. It does not matter if this stands over till tomorrow. Some Hon. Members: Yes, Sir. *E. D., Vol. 14, Part II, 7th August 1951, pp. 73-79.

734 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Speaker: But, if before tomorrow these matters cannot be settled, then, we can proceed with the Bill immediately. The President must, first of all say that a Member is disqualified. That is clear. Clause (1) (a) of Article 102 says: “if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.” Independently of the procedure under Article 103, without a question arising and the matter being referred to the President, Parliament can say that an office shall not be deemed to be an office of profit where it is clear that the remuneration is what is thought to be a fair compensation. Without bringing another Bill, if it can be disposed of by a suitable amendment herein, the Hon. Law Minister may consider that matter. There is a list of all these committees, and Mr. Sidhva’s amendment will stand over. I will put the other amendment to the House which seems to be not opposed. That stands in the name of Shri Sri Narayan Mahtha. Dr. Ambedkar: That I am accepting. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall put it to the House. Barring that, the other things given notice of by Mr. Sidhva may be looked into next day. Dr. Ambedkar: He can give me the actual resolutions ; I can verify. Mr. Deputy Speaker: This will be the first matter tomorrow. He need not bring any amendment. This will stand over so far as Mr. Sidhva’s amendments are concerned. Shri Himatsingka: May I suggest this for the consideration of the Hon. Law Minister? If he puts the proposition in a general form that membership of any committee where the payment does not exceed a certain amount, in the past, will not be regarded as an office of profit, that would cover. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Law Minister has already said that such a general proposition... Shri Himatsingka: That is only with respect to the past.

735PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect to the past, there have been varying amounts paid: Rs. 40, 50, etc. Shri Sondhi: Forty rupees is the maximum. Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member brings these matters to the notice of the Law Minister, he will go into them instead of throwing open the floodgates and making it appear that we are trying to bring in the immunity to a vast number of members. Let us not lay ourselves open to that kind of accusation. An Hon. Member: That is only for the past. Mr. Deputy Speaker: If any particular categories are there, they may be brought to the notice of the Law Minister and he will look into them. Dr. Ambedkar: In this case, the resolution mentioned Rs. 20. Pandit Kunzru: Before the discussion is adjourned till tomorrow, I might make a suggestion. The whole trouble has arisen because the Finance Ministry has decided that if any member receives a daily allowance of more than Rs. 20 for serving on a committee, he shall be regarded as holding an office of profit. If the Ministry decides that the limit should be increased from Rs. 20 to Rs. 40 which is the daily allowance drawn by a Member of Parliament for attending the meetings of Parliament, these troubles will disappear. I suppose that if this view had been accepted by the Finance Ministry, the Bill now brought forward by Dr. Ambedkar would not have been necessary. This Bill has been made necessary by the low limit fixed by the Finance Ministry. The Finance Ministry can do away with all this trouble and set the minds of hon. Members at ease by simply announcing that if a member receives an allowance not exceeding the daily allowance to which a Member of Parliament is entitled for attending the meetings of Parliament, he will not be regarded as holding an office of profit. No doubts will arise and no Bill will be necessary. Dr. Ambedkar: I would just like to say one word of correction to what my hon. friend has said. What the Finance

736 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Ministry—I should not bring in the Finance Ministry—what the Government now says is this. For non-official members of a committee, certain allowances have been fixed, as I said, so much for travelling by air, so much for travelling by train, so much for living allowances, Rs. 15 for Calcutta and Bombay and Rs. 12-8-0 elsewhere. That is the standard which the Government accepts as the standard of payment in which no profit element is involved. I believe my hon. friend has omitted to take that into account. If we are to have a mixed committee consisting partly of Members of Parliament and partly of members who are not Members of Parliament, obviously, we cannot prescribe different standards of payment. The standard of payment that we must adopt for a mixed committee of this kind is the standard which has been laid down for payment for members who are not Members of Parliament and consequently that standard becomes the ruling standard. Shri Sondhi: I would like to make one submission, Sir. There is a Committee from the Agriculture Department, the Central Arecanut committee. The daily allowance is Rs. 12-8-0 and not Rs. 12. Are we disqualified ? There are four members here. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I have heard Dr. Ambedkar with great attention and respect, but I must very humbly point out that he is an entirely wrong way of looking at the question. Article 102 of the Constitution makes it quite clear that the President is the final authority, that he has the final power of deciding about a particular case. And, in the alternative it is Parliament which can decide whether certain offices, if held would not amount to disqualification. The Finance Ministry or the Government as such has absolutely no power whatsoever in this connection. They cannot fix any standard whatsoever. Suppose there is a committee the membership of which carries an allowance of only Rs. 10 or even Rs. 5 but still the committee may be of such importance that its membership may be considered an honur and many would like to serve on the committee, in which case it will be perfectly open to Government to exercise its patronage in appointing the members to such a committee, exactly the thing which Dr. Ambedkar and we all