PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 609
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know. I am not very much interested in these matters. But, in view of the difficulties raised that a large number of polling agents would be reduced and that if we were to subject them to certain disqualifications the number available may be very few and that it may create a lot of difficulty in conducting the elections. I am prepared to accept the amendment of my hon. friend Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay.
Mr. Speaker : That is for dropping the clause altogether ?
Dr. Ambedkar: No. the point is this. I am told that our friends who propose to contest the elections wish to draw upon the college students who are younger than the prescribed age and may not be even voters. I have told them privately that they have already done a great mischief to young college boys by drawing them into the political arena and that they had better not repeat the same thing. They said that they must have this facility. I am prepared to allow that.
Mr. Speaker: It comes to as I was saying, if I mistake not, dropping and negativing clause 45 altogether. I shall put the clause first. The question is :
“That clause 45 stand part of the Bill [w] .
The motion was negatived.
- Clause 44.—( Polling agents )—contd.
Mr. Speaker : Now we come to clause 44.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I beg to move:
In clause 44, for the words “three days” substitute the words “one day”.
Sir, now that we have dropped clause 45, the work of scrutiny does not require 3 days. It is enough if the Returning Officer gets the names one day previous. Therefore I have suggested that instead of the words “three days”, the words “one day” may be put in.
Mr. Speaker: Amendment moved :
In clause 44, for the words “three days” substitutes the words “one day”.
- P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 21st May 1951, pp. 9180-84.