DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 287
“The President while accepting the motion on this particular occasion without creating a Precedent remarked :
“The Chair cannot allow a motion to adjourn consideration of a proposition to be moved merely in order to enable another item of business to come forward. It must be supported on substantial grounds.”
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The ruling says it is not a precedent but you want to make a precedent of it.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The President says ‘I am ruling but I am not creating a precedent.’
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : In this matter I would call your attention to page 81 of ‘ Decisions of the Chair ’ which says that there are certain motions which can be stated to be of a dilatory nature. The question of circulation is not certainly one of such nature. But there are motions of a dilatory nature and it is in the discretion and power of the Chair to allow them or not to allow them. One page 81 of this book in regard to re-committal of motions it has been held that though to start with, it may be regarded as a dilatory motion, if something happened in the Select Committee or some events have transpired since, the Chair is perfectly authorised to say that it is not a dilatory motion. Now the honourable Member has not been asked what the reasons are and before that my honourable friend gets up and says that it is a dilatory motion. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest at the very outset that it is a dilatory motion. A circulation motion is not a dilatory motion. Unless the Speaker comes to the conclusion that nothing has transpired in the Select Committee or no further events have taken place which justify him to retard that motion I think the Speaker is not entitled to say that any of the motions are also dilatory. Ordinary motions countenanced by the rules cannot be regarded as dilatory motions.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I think matters can be cut short in a minute. The precedent relied upon by the Honourable the Minister of Law does not apply to this situation at all. The heading is, “Adjournment of Debate”, . . . .
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This is an adjournment of debate, if the motion is carried.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : No, it is entirely different as I shall show. The sub-heading is “Adjournment of Debate: Motion when allowed to be moved:”. I do not move for an adjournment of this debate, which certainly could be done under amendment No. 2, that is:
“That the consideration of the Bill, as reported by the Select Committee be postponed.”