Vol. 15 · pages 791–795

772 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: I have no recollection. May be that is so. Mr. Deputy Speaker : In view of the statement made by the Hon. Minister I do not think the resolution is pressed. Has the mover the permission of the House to withdraw his resolution ? The resolution was by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendments automatically go. Next resolution.

773PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (39) CONDUCT OF A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT *The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari): Of course, the Law Minister will speak with greater authority. The article that is referred to as well as any other rule is conceived and put down in a form of words for application in the ordinary course. There are, however, certain general principles which guide every procedure which has the quality of a judicial procedure. Any law or any rule must be interpreted and applied so that the law itself may not be circumvented. Here is a case where proceedings were started in order to enquire into the conduct of a Member. It appears to me a matter of fundamental general principle that the object and procedure of Parliament cannot be circumvented by a technical act like this. Therein comes what Mr. Santhanam points out that the words “as soon as” is not there automatically to bring about a vacancy. Apart from any technical defect in the matter, the general principle. I submit, is important that the law is intended for the ends of law and not to be circumvented. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us hear the Hon. Law Minister. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): The point has come upon me quite suddenly and I am therefore only expressing, if I may say so, my first impressions, after reading article 101, clause (3). Vacation of a seat may take place for the reasons which have been specified in Articles 101 and 102. Article 101, clause (3) sub-clause ( b) refers to resignation by a Member of Parliament; the clause under which the hon. Member whose conduct is the subject-matter of investigation has acted. There is also another article which deals with disqualifications of Members for being chosen and for being a Member. If a Member falls under any of the conditions * P. D., Vol. 14, 27th August 1951, pp. 3247-48.

774 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES mentioned in Article 102, he also vacates his seat. The question that arises for consideration is whether Articles 101 and 102 are exhaustive or whether there is any other article in the Constitution which also may operate independently although the case does not fall under articles 101 and 102. My submission is this, that Article 105(3) is an additional power, given to Parliament to bring about a vacancy of a seat and is not concluded by anything contained in article 101 and article 102. This is a case where a Member has committed a breach of privilege and when the House takes it upon itself to come to a finding that the breach of privilege has been committed and that the case is so serious that an expulsion may be ordered, the House can order the expulsion under article 105(3). The House is competent to do so, because of what is stated in Article 105(3), where it is stated that the powers etc. of Parliament shall be those of the House of Commons, and any reference to May’s Parliamentary Practic. I think, will show that expulsion is one of the powers of the House of Commons and one of the powers that it possesses for punishing a breach of privilege. Therefore the powers to bring about a vacancy in a seat by ordering an expulsion is there under articl 105(3) and that is in no way abrogated by the provisions contained in articles 101 and 102. The only other question that arises for consideration is this, whether the proceedings that have already been started against the hon. Member under provisions of article 105 by a specific order of Parliament can, so to say, come to an end if the Member chooses to resign under the provisions of Article 101. My humble submission is that an hon. Member cannot bring about a stoppage of the proceedings under article 105 by resorting to Article 101. These proceedings must continue, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member has brought about his resignation under Article 101, and in fact it is not possible for Parliament to inflict a direct punishment upon him by virtue of their proceedings. Therefore, it may still be open for Parliament, notwithstanding the resignation of the hon. Member to proceed with the proceedings which have been already started under Article 105.

775PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Santhanam: I would just add one more word to what the Hon. Law Minister has said. The only construction of the word “resignation” is that the resignation should be formally notified by the authority concerned before it becomes operative. Otherwise all kinds of complications will arise. Suppose a letter is delivered at your house and you are not there. And you come after, say, four days. Can it be taken that the day it was delivered at your house it becomes operative ? In such cases the real construction is the one I have given. Mr. Deputy Speaker : But we are not on that point. *Pandit Maitra (West Bengal): Sir, I want you and also the hon. Members of the House to very carefully bear in mind that for the action we are taking now there is no precedent. A point of Constitutional law has been raised and it is of very great importance. We have no precedent whatsoever to go upon, either in May’s Parliamentary Practice ......... Dr. Ambedkar: Oh, yes. Pandit Maitra: I know May’s Parliamentary Practice lays down certain forms of penalty, e.g., censure, admonition, putting into jail etc.—all these things are nothing new. The point that has been raised by my hon. Friend, the Home Minister, if it is logically followed up, comes to this : that once a proceeding is started it can never be terminated. Is that the legal position ? It is coming to this, that if the hon. Member had died last night—I am taking a hypothetical case—would you proceed with it ? In giving its decision I am asking the Chair to bear these things in mind. It is a Constitutional point. The point is whether a Member ipso facto vacates the seat as soon as he delivers his letter of resignation to the Chair. I do not agree with my hon. Friend Mr. Santhanam that there should be a time-lag between the presentation of the resignation and its acceptance ; nowhere in the Constitution is it provided that it should be accepted or that you may or may not accept it. The law provides, the Constitution provides that the * P. D., Vol. 14, Part II, 24th September 1951, pp. 3251-54.

776 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES moment one delivers in writing his resignation to you in his own hand it is effective. And in this case he has delivered his letter of resignation in person to you, Sir, presiding over this House. There is nowhere provided in the Constitution that there should be a time-lag. Therefore, the question that would arise is whether or not when an hon. Member delivers his resignation on the floor of parliament, into the hands of the Chair, he vacates his seat forthwith. If he does vacate his seat, wherein lies the scope for further action on this motion ? That is a matter to be considered. I am not going to criticise your ruling (Interruption). Of course, my friend might sit in the Chair, but at the moment I do not accept his interpretation. Sir, we have closely to apply our mind because we are laying down a precedent for future guidance. I am interested from that point of view, not from the point of view of the merit of the case. The Parliamentary Committee has gone into considerable detail, devoting much time and considerable energy to this matter. With what object? In order that this whole question may be investigated, thrashed out and decided. The hon. Member having made a statement straightaway tenders his resignation and leaves the House. The question is whether you take this stand that once a proceeding has been set in motion it can never be interrupted ; or whether if due to any voluntary act of the person concerned, or if by reason of accident or death that man is removed from the scene the proceedings are to be continued. This is a very important matter to be carefully considered before you give your ruling. You are laying down for the first time in the history of this Parliament a precedent which will be the guide for the future. Dr. Ambedkar: May I add a word or two with your permission, to what I stated, because I feel that probably my statement has not been quite complete as it should have been. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend Pandit Maitra has raised this question. I think it is desirable to have our mind clear about this matter. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will put the matter in a somewhat technically legal fashion, and it is this. When a Member has been charged with a breach of privilege and before the proceedings have been concluded he resigns, is it a case that Parliament has lost its jurisdiction over him because he has resigned ? That I think is the