702 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
article 165 are not complied with it does not cause a vacancy—the seat does not become vacant. All that 165 says is that no person can take part in the voting or in the proceedings of the House unless lie has taken the oath. That is all. Therefore I do not see any difficulty about it at all.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : Why should it go to the Election Commission ?
The Honourable Dr, B. R. Ambedkar : I am coming to that. So far as 165 is concerned I think he will understand the fundamental distinction between that article and article 167. In the case of 165, there is no vacancy caused : there is only disability of taking part in the proceedings of the House.
Now, I come to the main amendment moved by my Honourable Friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari and that is article 167-A. Except for one point to which I shall refer immediately I think the amendment is well founded. The reason why the decision is left with the Governor is because the general rule is that the determination of disqualification involving a vacancy of a seat is left with that particular authority which has got the power to call upon the constituency to elect a representative to fill that seal. Although it is not so expressly stated, it is well understood that the question whether a seat is vacant or not by reason of any disqualification such as those mentioned in article 167 must lie with that authority which has got the power to call upon the constitutency to elect a representative to fill that seat. There is no doubt about it that in the new Constitution it is the Governor who has been given the power lo call upon a constituency to choose a representative. That being so, the power to declare a seat vacant by reason of disqualification must as a consequence rest with the Governor. For this reason so far as clause (1) of article 167-A is concerned, I find no difficulty in accepting it.
Now, I come to clause (2). This is rather widely worded. It says that any question regarding disqualification shall be decided by the Governor provided he obtains the option of the Election Commission and that he is bound lo act in accordance with such option. If members will turn to article 167, they will find that, so far as the disqualifications mentioned in (a) to (d) are concerned, the Commission is really not in a position to advise the Governor at all, because they are matters outside the purview of the Election Commission. For instance, whether any particular person holds an office of profit or whether a person is of unsound mind and has been declared by a competent court to be so, or whether he is an undischarged insolvenet or whether he is under any acknowledgment or adherence to a foreign power are matters which are entirely outside the purview of the Election Commission. They therefore could not be the proper body to advise the Governor. But when you come to sub-clause (e)