470 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Sir, I submit that this has introduced a serious change. I am not concerned with the policy of the law. But, I am concerned with the changes in the Departmental Bill of which the Select Committee seem to be unaware.
Then, Sir, coming to another part of the Bill. In the Departmental Bill.............
Mr. Tajamul Hussain : May I have your permission to raise a point of order ?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Tajamul Husain : My learned friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has been trying to show before the House that the Departmental Bill was considered by the Select Committee and not the original Bill and he does this after your finding of fact and ruling that the original Bill was considered by the Select Committee. I want to know your ruling now.
Mr. Speaker : I have been hearing his argument and I feel he is speaking in support of his amendment that the Bill be circulated for purposes of opinion and the other amendment is for recommitment to the same Select Committee. Therefore, though my ruling stands, I think, he is trying to make out a case that, there has been such a substantial departure from the original Bill as introduced by Sjt. Jogendra Nath Mandal, both in the scheme as well as in the content, that it is necessary now to recirculate or recommit it to the same Select Committee. His point, as I have understood till now, is that the original scheme of the Rau Committee in the first Bill was that the various parts of law should be taken in different compartments. It was possible to separate one from the other, but in the present scheme, the whole having been made as an organic whole, it is difficult now to take certain parts that the people agree to and drop out other parts, with which the people do not agree. How far he is right is another matter. therefore, he says that, it is necessary to recirculate the Bill for opinion. That is how I have understood the point till now. I do not think he is contradicting my ruling.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Not in the least. Sir, it will be too late in the day even to suspect that I have questioned your ruling. The ruling was on a point of law. It was very technical in nature. My point of order was based upon some assumptions which could not clearly be proved.