488 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Committee, and for the Select Committee say: “We confined our attention to the Departmental Bill”. Therefore, it follows that their attention was not drawn to this. It is a very simple conclusion.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Give it in your own way.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It seems to me that the Honourable the Law Minister found himself in an inconvenient position and somehow or other, though the mistake is admitted, it is not done pointedly. In fact changes of a substantial nature were made. I was asked on the last day by the Honourable Law Minister himself: “Let us know what are the changes made by the Drafting Committee”, and now he says : “I know everything”. Of course he must have studied them later on, but these changes are of a serious nature. They were introduced not by the Select Committee, but by the Departmental Committee and the question is how far the Select Committee did actually notice them. At least in the note of dissent Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand says: “We confined our attention to the Departmental Committee Bill and not to the original Bill” because they were assured that in the Departmental Bill they did not introduce any substantial changes at all. So taking this into account, I do not know where to go. In fact, if that is not a serious irregularity and a matter requiring attention of the House. I do not know, what is. When the Department has committed an error of judgment, I think it is better and proper to admit it than to say: “I know all this but no changes were made; every change was made by the Select Committee” and when I say that the Select Committee did not make the changes and they were made by the Departments Committee then it is said: “I know it”. Then we ought to know where does the Department stand ? If the Department makes a change.......
Shri B. Das : This is not a law court for us to hear point by point. The honourable Member should make a speech and sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member, Mr. Das made this statement when the Speaker was in the Chair. It is a law court in some sense and not a law court when he wants to impress upon honourable Members as if he is arguing a case in a court of law. In any case we ought not to interrupt him. That kind of talk ought to be avoided as far as possible.
Shri B. Das : We are talking among ourselves.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member has no right to talk when another honourable Member is on his legs and he ought not to disturb.
Shri B. Das : He is talking at us.