PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 173
Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : First of all I take strong exception to the issue of an ordinance when the House was sitting in the month of March.
Dr. Ambedkar: The ordinance was issued some time in May.
Clause 2
- Dr. Ambedkar: I wish that the points that were raised by my hon. Friend Mr. Sidhva and Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava had been reserved by them to the time when their amendments were taken up. It becomes somewhat embarrassing to reply on matters which would, I have no doubt, be raised again when their amendments are moved. But, I cannot help now having to reply to the points raised by them; I shall do so rather briefly, because I know I shall have to say ....
Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to allow any arguments on the amendments.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not going to move my amendment if my hon. friend does not accept it.
Dr. Ambedkar : Mr Sidhva has raised one or two points. The last point raised was why an Ordinance was made when the House was in session. The answer to that is two fold. The first is this. The first request that was made to the Government of India in the matter of extension of time for the preparation of the register came from the Government of Madras, and that too on or above the 15th of March 1950. That means that only 13 days had been left for the period for the preparation of the roll to expire. That is one reason. The second reason is that after the receipt of this letter from the Government of Madras, informing the Government of India that it was not possible for them to complete the Register, naturally it was necessary for the Government of India to find out from other States as to whether they were in a position to prepare their list by the date fixed, or whether they too wanted some extension. Naturally, there ensued
- P. D. Vol. 4, Part II, 11th August 1950, pp. 856-62.