PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 553
merely have the right to vote, but he must have the duty to vote and that he ought to be visited with some kind of a publishment. The sentiment of course is very laudable and no doubt the principle has been accepted in some of the countries such as Australia, Belgium etc. But let us examine the position a little more carefully. If this obligation is to be a real obligation, where in a country like India, according to Mr. Venkataraman himself and according to many others who have experience of elections, there is a general apathy regarding voting, the punishment must be somewhat serious. It could not be five rupees ; it could not be ten rupees. It shall have to be something like one hundred rupees. Now, I wonder whether anybody in this House, however enthusiastic he may be with regard to the point that every citizen ought to exercise his duty, would be prepared to support a punishment so condign, as the one represented by a fine of rupees one hundred. I doubt very much if many Members will come forward to support it. If the punishment is not rigorous enough, then again the law will be of no value at all.
Secondly, in a matter of this sort we will have to grant many exemptions. A voter may be on that day ill. If he is not ill, but finds subsequently that it is brought up before the court, it would not be very difficult to go to a medical man and obtain a certificate by paying eight annas, as most of us in criminal courts do in obtaining postponement of the cases. If he is not his wife may be ill, or she may have been delivered on the same day. All these things would arise and we may have to give a lot of exemption so that the law ultimately may remain to be a bare skeleton.
Shri Bharati (Madras) : What about the Australian Constitution ?
Dr. Ambedkar: In Australia almost everybody votes. I think the people who bring themselves within the ambit of this law are very few.
Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : What is the panalty there ?
Dr. Ambedkar: Five pounds.