PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 245
advocates, who in the opinion of the High Court, may be deemed to be sufficiently qualified and reliable to be employed as Members of this Tribunal. That is again on the supposition that the petitions may be so large that even the Judicial Members may not suffice. ( Interruption. ) I think it is good that we should give some employment to advocates because notwithstanding the many remarks that I have been hearing I am firm enough to say civilization cannot exist without advocates. Law is the very foundation of civilization.
As I said, the Bill provides that in the case of difference of opinion in the Tribunal a reference may be made to the High Court. Another, I think, very important feature of the Bill is this. I am not very much versed in the law relating to election petitions; I have not dealt with them on a very large scale. With what little experience I have, I have come to the conclusion that the law is in the most indefinite state that one can find. You can never definitely say what are the manners in which an election petition may be disposed of. You can never be certain on what grounds the election as a whole may be declared to be void. You can never be certain what are the grounds on which the election of a particular candidate may be declared. You are never certain under the existing law what are the cases in which the Courts may entertain what is called a plea of recrimination. I have therefore devoted considerable time and attention to the clarification of this position and I would invite the attention of hon. Members to clauses 93, 95 and 96 in which they will find that the position is made as clear as one can possibly do, and I hope that this will be a great advantage both to-the Tribunal as well as to the contesting candidates themselves.
Then, I come to the law of corrupt and illegal practices. Here again, the law has been scattered in various places. I endeavoured to bring all the provisions relating to corrupt practices and illegal practices under this one Bill and you will find them codified from sections 122 onwards. Our law in a sense was defective so far as corrupt intention was concerned. The law has not made it clear that in the case of a corrupt practice what was essential was not a practice which is declared to be corrupt but the corrupt intention. With