DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 295
In the next amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, the only adddition is of the words “31st December 1949”. I do not think he need move amendment No. 16.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Select Committee referred to there is a separate select committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think I can allow this amendment to be moved. The honourable Member must have given the names of the Members for the Select Committee at the time of giving notice of the motion.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have divided it into two parts. First of all there is the idea of the Select Committee. If it is acceptable . . .
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The house cannot be asked to give its opinion first in a matter of this kind. As the honourable member has not given the names of the Members for the select committee to the Chair earlier, his amendment is ruled out of order.
Discussion on the general motion may now be resumed. I call upon Seth Govind Das to speak now.
Seth Govind Das : Sabhapathiji . . . . .
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : During general discussion the honourable Member who has moved an amendment has the first right to speak.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member will leave it to the Chair. The Chair knows the procedure.
Mr. Tajamul Husain : I have been trying to raise a point of order for a long time. Sir, I shall be very brief. The honourable member Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad who is very keen on punctuation, on commas and full stops etc. has given notice of this amendment that this Bill be circulated. This is absolutely out of order. The honourable member should have worded his amendment thus. This Bill be re-circulated. That is my point of order. This is what the relevant rule says : ‘any member may move as an amendment that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-committed or re-circulated as the case may be for the purpose of obtaining opinion or further opinion thereon’. Therefore, the honourable member who is very keen on commas and full stops etc. should have put the words “re-circulated for further opinion”. My point of order, therefore, is that as the wording of this amendment is not according to the rules, it may be ruled out of order.