PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 603
either the words “and vital” be added, or the words “which is not of a substantial character” be omitted. A technical defect is understandable.
I now come to my second amendment. I beg to move:
In sub-clause (5) of clause 34, omit the words “or obstructed by riot or open violence”.
Why should we limit the obstruction of the proceedings to only riot and open violence ? I think it is very tantalising, Sir, to refer to only two causes. There might be a variety of causes by which the proceedings may be interrupted. Hence I suggest the deletion of these words. In fact this is in my view an invitation to riot and open violence, if some candidate chooses to do it.
Shri Sidhva: What about a cyclone ?
Dr. Ambedkar: That would be covered under “causes beyond his control”.
Dr. Deshmukh: If you omit the words “or obstructed by riot or open violence or” I do not think any harm would be done. I therefore hope that both of my amendments will be accepted.
Mr. Chairman : Amedment moved :
In sub-clause (4) of clause 34, after the word “substantial” insert the words “and vital”.
In sub-clause (5) of clause 34, omit the words “or obstructed by riot or open violence or”.
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not accept them.
- Mr. Chairman: I will now put the clause.
Shri Meeran: I have two amendments to this clause— Nos. 343 and 349 in the Consolidated List.
Mr. Chairman: May I know whether the Hon. Minister is prepared to accept any of them ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I am not accepting any amendment.
*P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 19th May 1951, pp. 9168-69,