E-Paper
HT Archive: Representation of People Bill adopted
Despite an agreement reached on most of the controversial points among members at an informal meeting in the morning, a vigorous debate took place on certain clauses
During its final sitting yesterday — one of the stormiest in the 11-week Budget session — Parliament passed the Representation of the People Bill, 1950, which prescribes the strength of the House of the People, state legislatures and upper chambers in States.
The bill also provides for the preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies and qualifications of voters. One of the important amendments accepted raises the strength of the House of the People from 488, as originally prescribed, to 496, on the basis of one representative for 720,000 people.
Despite an agreement reached on most of the controversial points among members at an informal meeting in the morning, a vigorous debate took place on certain clauses, particularly on delimitation of parliamentary constituencies.
When Parliament met in the afternoon to pass the contentious Representation of the People Bill, 1950, Dr Ambedkar, amidst cheers, said that the informal meeting of the members of Parliament held in the morning at the suggestion of the Speaker unanimously accepted certain amendments to the bill. He hoped that there would be no further controversy or debate on the subject.
The Speaker congratulated the members and wanted to know whether any member was moving new amendments. An amendment moved by Mr Ajit Prasad Jain to Clause 6 suggesting a specific provision of single-member constituencies, except in the case of constituencies reserved for scheduled castes, provoked an expectedly prolonged and heated debate. Mr Jain argued that the Constitution provided that Parliament might, by law, make provisions relating to the preparation of electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies. Clause 6 of the Bill empowered the President to determine the number of seats allotted to each constituency. Apart from this constitutional objection, the House must remember that delimitation was a very important question on which the whole structure of election depended. Single-member constituencies were considered the best except when it became necessary to have multiple constituencies for the purpose of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes.
Mr Jaspatrai Kapoor, moving a similar amendment, said that by empowering the President in regard to delimitation of constituencies, Parliament would have no say in the matter of deciding the number of seats allotted to each constituency and the method of election.
Dr Ambedkar, intervening, said that he wanted to remove suspicions from the minds of Messrs Jain and Kapoor and other members of Parliament. “It seems to me that we are under the misapprehension,” he said, that by Clause 6, Parliament is going to be completely deprived of its right to determine what should be the nature of the constituencies.
“I have not the slightest intention to deprive Parliament of its right to determine these. The Bill is not a complete Bill in itself. It is to be followed by another Bill known as Conduct of Elections Bill or Electoral Bill. In that, matters relating to constituencies, qualification and disqualification of candidates and the voting system will be dealt with. It will be undoubtedly within the competence of Parliament to come to a decision when the Bill is placed before it as to what sort of system of delimitation of constituencies and voting they want. There is no desire to oust the jurisdiction of Parliament at all. I am myself most anxious... at every stage in the delimitation of constituencies, Parliament should be associated. I am making a provision in Clause 13 stating that not only shall the order of delimitation passed by the President be placed before Parliament but Parliament shall have the right to carry out such modifications as it thinks necessary. It also empowers the Speaker to appoint a committee of the House to be associated with the work of delimitation of constituencies,” he said.
Dr Ambedkar said that Clause 6, which provided for delimitation, would not come into operation unless the other Bill had been passed. As it was proposed to amend Clause 21 providing for a supplementary electoral roll, this would take a fairly long time.
The Prime Minister said that in regard to election matters, it was always considered important that every group should have its place and “every state, every group, and every minority should have a sense of fair play.”
“In a matter of this kind,” said Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, “we have not only to consider the interests of various groups and minorities but also the States. It is a little difficult for any election, however organised, to result in a just distribution. There is bound to be a feeling that the majority is just trying to brush aside the interests of the minority. In the matter of elections, if something is done by which a group or a State feels aggrieved, it is not right.”
The strength of Parliament was sought to be raised from 488, as suggested originally in the Bill, to 496, through an amendment moved by Dr Ambedkar. The additional eight seats were to be utilised for giving more representation to Centrally administered areas. Delhi, Ajmer, Bhopal, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur, Tripura and Vindhya Pradesh were each given an additional seat.
The House was then adjourned sine die.
