PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 519
is correct, it is not necessary for us to introduce any kind of clause in this Bill at all, because the Constitution itself lays down in article 102 that holders of offices of profit shall not be eligible for being Members of Parliament. If his contention is that they are holders of office of profit, they automatically come under article 102 of the Constitution. It has laid down this disqualification which this Parliament can neither amend nor enlarge. The only thing he can do is to act under article 103 which says that if any person who is a holder of an office of profit is a Member of Parliament, the matter may be referred to the President and the President shall after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission, give his decision according to such opinion. To take a concrete case, suppose any particular prince—I think they call them princes—is elected to this House or to any Chamber of the State Legislature, all that is necessary to do, if my friend is correct, is to apply to the President saying that he is a disqualified person and so cannot take a seat in Parliament. Therefore, on his own argument it is unnecessary to introduce any clause for the purpose in this Bill. It is for him to say whether his contention that they are holders of offices of profit is correct or incorrect. On that subject I do not propose to express any opinion now.
Shri Sidhva: They get a sort of pension.
Dr. Ambedkar: There is vast difference between pensionholders and these cases.
Shri Hussain Imam (Bihar) : What about Government pensioners? Are they holding offices of profit ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not wish to be dragged into this aspect of the matter. The point is very simple. The question is whether if they are holders of offices of profit, they are disqualified. If that be so, the disqualification is there under article 102. You have only to refer to the provisions of article
102 and get the person removed from Parliament.
Shri Raj Bahadur: It is a case for the lawyers again.
Dr. Ambedkar: Why not? The hon. Member is himself a lawyer. Why should he shut himself out?