PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 599
be sprung upon the House. May I know whether this amendment moved at this juncture is admissible?
Pandit Kunzru : Sub-clause (5) requires that .........
Dr. Ambedkar : To shorten the proceedings, I would say that I am accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chairman : The Hon. Minister in charge is going to accept the amendment.
- Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay : I will not repeat the objections taken by some hon. Members. In view of the difficulties that arise on account of the acceptance of this amendment. I would suggest the acceptance of amendment No. 348 in the printed list, namely the insertion of the words “beyond second day” after the words “adjournment of the proceedings.” That will solve all the difficulties.
“The Returning Officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 28 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings beyond second day except..........”
I do not think any such difficulty would arise in accepting that amendment.
Dr. Ambedkar : Apart from the question whether the existing rules in U.P. and other provinces contain such a rule as is stated in the amendment. I think it is possible for the House to consider this matter independently on its own merits. What is the Returning Officer’s job ? His job is set out in sub-clause (2) of clause 24 that he shall decide upon the points stated there from (a) to (e). Those are the possible objections that a candidate may raise against another. It does seem to me that if one candidate is confronted with an objection falling, for instance under (b), namely “that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act” or if he is confronted with the objection falling under (e) that the signature of the candidate or any proposer or seconder is not genuine or has been obtained by fraud, it seems to me somewhat difficult that he should
- P. D. Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9163-66.