546 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
perturbed. As Hon. Dr. Ambedkar has said that this law was in force previously as well and in spite of it Congressmen, Socialists and Communists etc. in our country propagated their political doctrines and at the same time canvassed votes for their respective candidates as well, then what emergency has arisen today ? It will be better if Hon. Dr. Ambedkar clarifies the position during his reply to the Debate.
- Shri Venkataraman : ...... There is another thing which I do not understand. In clause 3 of the Bill it is laid down that a candidate to the Council of States should be a resident of the State concerned, but a candidate to the House of the People need be resident only in any Parliamentary Constituency in the country. I fail to see any reason for this distinction between the two. If there is any I hope the Hon. Minister of Law will clarify the position and tell us the reason why this distinction has been laid down, Clause 3 says :
“A person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative ...... in the council of States unless he is an elector for a Parliamentary Constituency in that State...”
Shri Syamanandan Sahaya (Bihar) : Because it is the Council of the States.
Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, that is the reason. And the other is the House of the People.
Shri Venkataraman: But a person belonging to a particular State may be resident in another place and he should not be disqualified from standing as a candidate because he is not resident in that State. Take, Sir, your own case. You have become a resident in Delhi and so you will not be able to stand for election in your own State, since you are not enrolled in that constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I am not in touch with my constituency, why should I stand as their candidate ?
Shri Venkataraman: Sir, as I said, this point has to be considered.
*P.D., Vol. 11, Part II, 11th May 1951, pp. 8574-75.