DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 339
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This part of the Bill was, if I may say so, very much considered.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad, Sir, that the original Bill was considered. Then the only technical point remains, that it was not considered clause by clause, there is intrinsic evidence that it was not so considered. What is the effect? Supposing there are provisions omitted. How were those provisions considered? When the entire attention was on the draft of the other Bill those clauses could not have been considered. This is not a technical matter...
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member is aware that the House is not bound by whatever the Select Committee has done. The Select Committee have sent a recommendation ; it is open to the honourable Member to accept or not to accept it; if he does not accept it, he can persuade the House not to accept it. We need not go into that again. After all, some Members were there. It is not right to go into what they considered or what they did not consider, the honourable Member would do better in addressing the House as to why we ought not to accept a provision or why we should accept it.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I will accept your advice, Sir, I will not refer in future to what happened before the Select Committee. I will only say this point, with your permission. Even if the Select committee acquiesced in this fraud that the original Bill is not to be considered and the substitute Bill is to be considered, we are not bound. An accused, before a criminal court, acquiesces in a certain procedure which is illegal; then it does not bind him. May I quote some rulings? A Court is required to go into a question and find out for itself whether there is good evidence or record to bind an accused under section 107 Criminal Penal Code. The accused says, “I agree to be bound in that evidence”. The Court says, “You are bound”. But the appellate Court still rules that the right procedure was not observed and the acquiescence of the accused in a wrong procedure does not make the order legal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is not the honourable Member satisfied with tearing the report of the Select Committee in pieces ? Should he also say they are “accused” ?
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Those who are guilty of disregard of the fundamental rules of procedure which govern a Select Committee are today accused before the House. I am sorry I have to say something which may not be wholesome to some of my friends, but I do so