PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 579
Shri Hanumanthaiya: The difficulty is about the words “unavoidably prevented” and that may be a subject for interpretation in a court of law.
Dr. Ambedkar: What is the other word that you will supply?
Shri Hanumanthaiya: I will suggest a solution. Instead of the words ‘unavoidably prevented’ let the word ‘absent’ be used. Then there will be no controversy.
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not want him to be absent. That is my point. Once he is appointed to perform the duty and especially when he is regarded as a persona designata it should be obligatory upon him that notwithstanding other functions, he must attend to this function first.
Shri Hanumanthaiya: Then it can easily be answered in a court of law. ‘Unavoidably prevented’ is a matter of proof.
Dr. Ambedkar: It may be a matter of proof.
Shri P. Basi Reddi: Why not give previous authorisation to one of the Returning Officers ?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: He has answered that point. This argument is getting endless. If he was not really unavoidably prevented and if it is only a question between the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer, it does not matter. The point is that the election may be called in question. Is there any posibility to rectify this?
Dr. Ambedkar: I think that is a matter between the Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer so far as I can interpret it.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras) : In sub-clause
(2) the words are: “Every Assistant Returning Officer shall, subject to the control of the Returning Officer, be competent to perform all the functions etc.” So this is the only limitation.
Dr. Ambedkar: The last portion is not the enacting portion; the earlier portion is the enacting portion. The Election Commission may take the Returning Officer to task if it came to know that he absented himself without any unavoidable reason.