Vol. 15 · pages 796–800

777PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES question which we have to consider and which is the question which my hon. Friend has raised, although not in those technical terms. The answer to that question is this, that the jurisdiction of Parliament for punishing people or taking proceedings against people for contempt—this is a case of contempt—is not confined to Members of Parliament, but it also extends to the members of the public who have committed contempts of the Parliament and I shall read a little passage which I have bodily taken from “May”: “The penal jurisdiction of the Houses is not confined to their own Members nor to offences committed in their immediate presence, but extends to all contempts of the houses whether committed by Members or by persons who are not Members, irrespective of whether the offence is committed within the house or beyond its walls.” Therefore, the jurisdiction of parliament to protect itself against contempt which is one aspect of the breach of privilege, is not confined to Members of Parliament. It extends to all citizens. No citizen shall commit any act which would amount to contempt of the privilege of the House. Therefore, assuming for the purposes of argument that the resignation of Shri Mudgal which has been tendered to you now becomes effective immediately, nonetheless my submission is that the jurisdiction of this house to proceed against him continues. He cannot escape it. What form the punishment may take is a different matter which may be considered when we actually come to that. If the contention of my hon. Friend Pandit Maitra is that by submitting your resignation you escape the jurisdiction of Parliament, then I think that it is absolutely wrong. Pandit Maitra: I put it in a different way. Dr. Ambedkar: I have put it in a way which is more intelligible. Pandit Maitra : Once an action is set in motion, it cannot be anybody’s case that it can never be interrupted. Dr. Ambedkar: So long as the jurisdiction exists, the action may continue.

778 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Sardar B. S. Man : On a point of order. The motion which is being discussed was permissible when it was introduced but now, due to subsequent happenings, it has become inadmissible. I want your ruling on this. You will see that the motion specifically says: “That this House, having considered the Report of the Committee appointed on the 8th June 1951 to investigate into the conduct of Shri H. G. Mudgal, Member of Parliament...” So, the question is not one of jurisdiction of parliament. We are discussing the conduct of a “Member of Parliament” and Shri Mudgal is no longer a “Member of Parliament”. Therefore, my contention is that the motion was admissible to start with, but due to subsequent happenings it has become in the meantime inadmissible and we can now no longer proceed with the discussion on this motion. Shri Rajagopalachari: The more we argue in this manner the more clear it becomes to my mind that circumvention cannot be permitted. The terms and manner in which points are taken show that this is nothing but circumvention. Continuing what Dr. Ambedkar said, it must be remembered that punishments are additional in “May”. It says : “In the case of contempts committed against the house of Commons by Members two other penalties are available...” Expulsion is not the only penalty. “ ...normally suspension from the service of the house and expulsion...” Expulsion is an additional penalty available against Members, apart from any kind of punishment which the House is competent to pass against anyone who is guilty of contempt. Now that expulsion may, in the opinion of some Members, become impossible, because he has ceased to be a member, the house will have to consider other forms of punishment. The guilt and proceedings cannot be terminated by an act of the person who is charged.

779PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES *Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us hear the Law Minister. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): The amendment moved by my friend. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has really nothing to do with the resignation by Mr. Mudgal. His amendment had been submitted long before the resignation. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I would not have moved it. I had already decided not to move it and I gave expression to that view privately to the Government whip ; but I moved it simply because of this new contingency. When I tabled the amendment it was under a mistaken impression that the house had no jurisdiction, but later on I found that the house had full jurisdiction and I decided not to move it. Later on, in view of this contingency of resignation I thought this might be relevant, though at the time when I tabled the amendment there was no such purpose. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not understand the motives and purposes of my hon. Friend. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : No, it is difficult some times. Dr. Ambedkar: But the fact remains that the notice of the amendment was given long before the resignation of Mr. Mudgal and the purpose of the amendment undoubtedly was to soften the punishment that was proposed in the original motion that was moved by the Hon. Prime Minister. The question that has now arisen is this : whether in view of the resignation of Mr. Mudgal the motion as moved by the Hon. Prime Minister could be carried out in its original form or whether any subsequent amendment is necessary. The whole question seems to me to hang on the other issue, namely whether the resignation of Mr. Mudgal is in order so that it could be accepted as resignation and take effect immediately. My submission to you, Sir, is that the act of resignation must be a simple act of resignation without expressing either the grounds for resignation or casting any aspersions on the House as to why the hon. Member is resigning. When the question was last raised you were good enough to say that *P. D., Vol. 14, Part II, 25th September 1951, pp. 3271-75.

780 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES it was open to you to accept the resignation subject to the fact that certain words and phrases used by Mr. Mudgal could be expunged and the resignation made proper as a result of this expunction. My submission to you, Sir, is this. No doubt it is open to the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker or for that matter anyone sitting in the Chair to expunge any part of the debate which he thinks is defamatory, indecent or unparliamentary or undignified. But the point that I wish to submit is this, that the authority of the Speaker to expunge any part of the record relates only to anything said in the course of the debate. I should like to read Rule 176 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 176 deals with report of proceedings. Rule 176A deals with expungment of matter and says: 10-00 A.M. “If the Speaker is of opinion that a word or words has or have been used in debate which is or are defamatory, or indecent, or unparliamentary, or undignified, he may in his discretion order that such word or words be expunged from the proceedings of the house.” As you will see, this rule is confined to anything said in the course of the debate. I submit with all respect that the resignation tendered by Shri Mudgal can by no stretch of the meaning of the word be regarded as anything done in the course of the debate. It therefore stands quite outside the proceedings of the House and therefore there is no power in the Speaker to expunge the words which admittedly both (I believe) in the opinion of the house as well as in the opinion of the Government are such that they are not liable to be expunged on the grounds mentioned in Rule 176-A. Therefore, Rule 176-A would not permit the Chair to apply the provisions contained therein to the application for resignation by Shri Mudgal. Therefore, the application must be treated as it stands without any kind of expungment and my submission is that the application should not be treated as an application for resignation ( Interruption.) Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh): On a point of order. Dr. Ambedkar: I have not finished. Mr. Deputy Speaker: He is rising to a point of order. Let us hear him first.

781PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Pandit Kunzru : You ruled yesterday, Sir, that your final opinion was that the resignation had become effective. Is that point open to discussion now ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know. Pandit Kunzru : The Deputy Speaker said so yesterday. Dr. Ambedkar: It was not final, so far as I remember. Pandit Maitra (West Bengal): Sir, you said yesterday that the operative portion of the motion should be kept in abeyance. That was your ruling and that was all that you said. The point raised by me was whether or not, as soon as Shri Mudgal’s resignation was tendered and delivered to you, he vacated his seat in the House. That was the main point raised and as far as I could gather from Pandit Kunzru you were earlier of the same opinion that the resignation was effective. Dr. Ambedkar: He said ‘subject to consideration’. Pandit Kunzru: I think the record will show it. The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari): I think, Sir and the record will show it that you definitely said that you will take time to consider. Pandit Kunzru: Anyway, the point that you were to consider was whether the motion moved by the Prime Minister could be taken up by the house without any amendment or whether any amendment should be moved and what further action could be taken. But so far as the resignation itself was concerned, you drew attention to article 101 and said that you had no doubt in your mind that the resignation was final and had become effective. An Hon. Member: No, Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall read from the record. This is what happened: Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard sufficient. I have already told the house that so far as the operative part of it is concerned, what action has to be taken is a matter which must be considered at leisure. I will consider that matter. As