REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NO. 2) BILL - Page 574

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 557

Dr. Ambedkar: As the author of the amendment himself has said it is a purely verbal amendment. But I would like to add one more point. That is that the form that has been adopted in the Bill is the form which has been adopted in the Constitution. We would like to follow the form used in the Constitution consistently in all the Bills which relate to this matter. I therefore cannmot accept the amendment.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I do not wish to press it.

Mr. Speaker: Then I am not putting it to the House.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I beg to move.

In sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 for the words “Parliamentary Constituency” substitute the words “House of the People Constituency”.

Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot accept this amendment. In the first place there is no difference in substance. The effect remains the same. All that we are trying to do is to keep up the uniform phraseology which is used in this Act as well as . in the Representation of the People Act already passed. If my hon. friend were to see the definition in sub-clause ( f ) of clause 2 he will see that ‘Parliamentary constituency’ is defined to mean “a constituency provided by section 6 or by order made thereunder for the purpose of election to the House of the People.” Therefore, there is really no difference at all. Secondly, I would like to draw his attention to the interpretation clause, clause 2, sub-clause 1( a ) where it is stated: “each of the expressions defined in section 2 of the expressions defined in section 2 or sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950), but not defined in this Act, shall have the same meaning as in that Act.” Therefore, this is quite unnecessary.

*P.D., Vol. 14, Part II, 11th May 1951, pp. 8659-60.