Vol. 15 · pages 96–100

79PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (11) PARLIAMENT (PREVENTION OF DISQUALIFICATION) BILL *The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move : “That the Bill to make provision in regard to certain offices of profit under article 102 of the Constitution, be taken into consideration”. I do not think that it is necessary for me to make any long statement to enable the hon. Members to understand the provisions of this Bill. It is a very short one. It has only one clause but just to put hon. Members in a position to know exactly what is being done, I would like to say that article 102 of the Constitution provides that certain persons shall be disqualified from being Members of Parliament. One of the disqualifications relates to holding of an office of profit under Government. So far as Ministers are concerned, they are exempted from the operation of article 102 by clause (2) of that article. We have however in the Government of India not only Ministers but also other categories of Ministers viz. Deputy Ministers and Ministers of State. These offices were created before the Constitution came into operation. Their occupants were entitled to hold office at the same time as Members of Parliament because during the period which intervened between the 15th August 1947 and the 26th January 1950 the Government of India Act 1935, as adapted, did not contain the provision to which I have made reference viz., holding of an office of profit as a disqualification. The situation has, of course, now altered by reason of the provision contained in Article 102 so that from the 26th January 1950 Ministers of States and Deputy Ministers would have become disqualified from sitting in Parliament. In order to get over the difficulty the Government issued an Ordinance permitting them to sit in Parliament and to remove the disqualification they would have otherwise incurred. As hon. Members know, under the new Constitution, the life of an Ordinance is a very * P. D., Vol. 2, Part II, 9th March 1950, p. 1330.

80 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES short one viz., six weeks from the re-assembly of Parliament. In this particular case Parliament assembled on the 28th January so that the Ordinance would expire on the 12th of this month. It is necessary that this Bill should be got through before the Ordinance ceases to have legal operation. The Bill seeks to include what I may say, clause (a) of Section 2 of the Ordinance, which referred to Deputy Ministers and Ministers of State. The present Bill does not propose to give effect to clause (b) of section 2 of the original Ordinance which made provision for part-time offices. Instead of that, the Bill seeks to include two more offices viz., Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. It is felt that although these offices are not in existence now and have not been created, it is quite possible that the Government of India may find it necessary to create them. It was therefore felt that it would be better to enlarge the scope of the Bill in order to include these offices as well. I do not think that any more argument is necessary to support the Bill and I hope the House will accept it. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion moved. *Dr. Ambedkar: I would like to understand, whether my hon. Friend agrees to the proposal in the Bill that these two offices should be created and being created, they should be exempted from the provision enacted in article 102 of the Constitution ? Let us understand it very clearly and if my hon. friend is going to take the whole of the half hour, there is no use going any further. Shri Tyagi: If he is tired, he might go home. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree any length of time can be taken but so far as this Bill is concerned, it is a very small point. **Dr. Ambedkar: I only wanted to understand what exactly was the point my hon. friend was driving at and if he was going to take the whole of the half hour, it is much better to begin tomorrow and finish the Bill. *P. D., Vol. 2, Part II, 9th March 1950, p. 1334. **Ibid., p. 1334.

81PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Tyagi: When people are not quick to understand, I take time to make them understand. Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh): Do Government insist that the Bill should be passed today? Dr. Ambedkar: I am not saying so. It is only the Hon. Deputy Speaker who says, “let us sit for half an hour.” Pandit Kunzru: I think it will be a fruitless discussion and I venture to think that the discussion will end quicker if we adjourn till tomorrow. *Dr. Ambedkar: On the first point raised by my friend, Mr. Tyagi, as to whether there is at all any necessity for bringing in this measure, I think what has fallen from the Prime Minister should suffice, and I would only like to add this by way of clarification : Our real difficulty has arisen by reason of the fact that the definition Article, Article 366, does not define the word “Minister”. Therefore the word “Minister” is left to be interpreted in two ways, either in the larger sense which would include not only Members who are Ministers but also Members who are Deputy Ministers or Ministers of State. It would also include in the popular sense Parliamentary Secretaries and also Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. That is one interpretation which is perfectly possible, but it is also possible to put a narrow construction whereby Ministers would mean not Ministers including Deputy Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries or Parliamentary Under Secretaries, but only Members of the Cabinet. As the House knows that there is customarily—I am deliberately using the word ‘customarily’—quite a distinction between Ministers who are Members of the Cabinet and Ministers who are not Members of the Cabinet, and it is quite possible for anybody, even for a Court, to put the narrower construction and confine the de jure interpretation of the word “Ministers” to Members of the Cabinet only, in which case undoubtedly....... *P. D., Vol. 2, Part II, 10th March 1950, pp. 1344-48.

82 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Pandit Kunzru : Which Court is my hon. Friend referring to ? Dr. Ambedkar : Any Court. I am coming to that also. I was only speaking generally. Any person may question that interpretation. If that interpretation is questioned, obviously, there would be difficulties. Therefore, it is by way of caution, by way of removing any kind of doubt or difficulty that this Bill has been brought in, and as I said, if the interpretation given by my friend, Mr. Tyagi, was upheld in a place where such question was likely to be raised, no one would be unhappy if it was then found that the Bill was unnecessary, but if unfortunately notwithstanding the great argument, the extensive argument, the original argument addressed by my friend, Mr. Tyagi, it was found that that construction was not the correct construction, then it would be obvious that the Parliament did wise in passing this Bill. Therefore so far as the exact provisions of the Bill are concerned, I think a cautious House ought to support them. I would not say anything more on that point. In regard to the other question, viz., disqualification incurred by Members of the House by reason of the fact that they are holding some kind of office which is outside the Ministerial offices...... Shri Sidhva: I mentioned Committees. Dr. Ambedkar: That is why I said non-Ministerial offices. I am using the exact legal term. That question, I think, requires to be considered. That question was raised yesterday after Parliament rose, but unfortunately when I went to my room, I found that all the libraries were closed and I could not get the necessary books of reference which I wanted to consult, because I knew that this matter would be raised in the House and I thought that I should be prepared to give some kind of reply as far as I could under the circumstances. I have applied my mind to this matter and all I can say is that I have come to some tentative conclusion which I should like to present before the House.

83PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES In the first place, I should, like to remove the sort of scare which has been raised by my friend, Mr. Sidhva, that any enemy of his might create trouble. I hope he has none. I think he is one who may be correctly described as Ajatashatru. Any how, our Constitution has made ample provision that matters of this sort relating to disqualification should not go to a Court. By Article 103 we have left the power to decide whether any particular Member of Parliament has incurred a disqualification by reason of accepting an office of profit or not, with the President. The President is the final authority. Under Article 103 the President has been released—very deliberately and very wisely—from acting on the advice of the Ministry, because it was felt that the Ministry might give an interested advice to the President. Therefore, in this particular case relating to disqualification arising out of holding an office of profit, the President is required to act on the advice of the Election Commissioner. Shri Kamath: What about clause (2) of Article 103 ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am coming to that. Article 103 is, so to say, an exception to article 74. Under Article 74 the President is required to accept the advice of the Ministers in all matters relating to legislation and administration. With regard to this, an exception has been made, and as I said, a deliberate exception has been made so that no political influence could be brought to bear on the decision of the question by the President. Shri Kamath: Which is the body which acts for the Election Commissioner now ? Dr. Ambedkar: We are immediately constituting the office of the Election Commissioner, and I have no doubt about it that before any such question is presented to the President, the Election Commissioner will be there to deal with the matter. Shri Kamath: In this particular case, clause (2) of Article 103 which is mandatory has not been observed.