PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 591
After sub-clause (5) of clause 31, insert the following new sub-clause :
“(5a) If at the time of the presentation of the nomination paper the Returning Officer finds that the name of the candidate is not registered in the electoral roll of the constituency for which, he is the Returning Officer, he shall for the purposes of subsection (5) require the person presenting the nomination paper to produce either a copy of the electoral roll in which the name of the candidate is included or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll.”
I don’t think I need say much on this because the Hon. Minister has agreed to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved.
Dr. Ambedkar : I have also given notice of an amendment to the same effect. So I agree to this amendment.
Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I also had an amendment to clause 5 in this connection. My feeling is, why should the huge cost of supplying copies of the electoral rolls which is going to be heavy, be borne by the candidate ? Why should not a copy of the relevant entries of the electoral roll of the constituency only be produced ?
Dr. Ambedkar : The word there is “or”.
Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Yes, I am trying to explain. The option in this case lies with the Returning Officer.
Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : I strongly object to the amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. But in order to bring about a uniformity of decisions of all the Returning Officers in different places, it would I think be better to substitute the word “shall” for the word “may”.
Shri Shiv Charan Lal (Uttar Pradesh) : I do not think that there is room for any fear, as expressed by my hon. friend Prof. Ranga and Shri Syamnandan Sahaya that the Returning Officer may not correct nomination papers, because it has been clearly laid down in section 34 that no nomination paper will be rejected on the ground of any technical mistake. Therefore,