PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 545
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Why should persons who have undergone imprisonment for more than two years be disqualified ?
Shri P. Y. Deshpande: That is true. I would even allow a criminal to stand as a candidate. I appreciate the case of the criminal. But, if you take a fundamental stand that every adult has the right to vote and stand as a candidate for the elections, if that is your concept of democracy, then, if the criminal has the courage to stand, the people will defeat him if they do not want a criminal. If a Raja wants to stand and if the people do not want him, the people will defeat him. The right to defeat these persons is vested in the people.
- Shri Ghule: ......I think, elections, big and small have been held in this country but it is difficult to make any distinction between the meetings held for the propagation of political doctrines and those for the personal canvassing of the candidate.
Dr. Ambedkar: I might inform the hon. Member that there is absolutely nothing new in clause 124, which has been bodily copied from the existing rules, which he will find in the Corrupt Practices and Election Practices Order, First Schedule, Part III. It has been there since 1919.
Shri Ghule : Quite right, I was just thinking that as this clause connotes a wide conception, it should have been included in the previous Act, and as you say, it was included. In spite of this law, Congressmen and other Members fought the previous elections while propagating the political doctrines to which they subscribed and at the same time canvassed votes in the constituencies from which they stood, but I have not come across any such instance in which the tribunals in India have declared any of the elections invalid on this ground. Therefore, as I was saying that I was not disturbed in the least to read the note of dissent of Shri Goenka but after having listened to the speech of Hon. Dr. Ambedkar I feel
*P. D., Vol. 11, Part II, 11th May 1951, p. 8534.