PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 631
Dr. Ambedkar: I would prefer this matter to be considered under 61 (5) which is more direct rather than to do it in this indirect fashion.
Mr. Chairman: I think that so far as the right to vote is concerned, first of all it should be established by the House. As Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari pointed out there is no rule precluding us from considering clause 59 because the acceptance under clause 59 also establishes two things, namely, the right to vote as well as the right to vote in a particular manner. All the same it is an accepted principle that before we take to the latter course, it would be better to get the right to vote established. Then the Government shall have to prescribe the manner in which that right is to be exercised. Then when the amendment comes in, it will be right for us to say whether the particular mode which the Government proposes for obtaining the vote of the detenu is proper or not. We shall have occasion then to consider whether establishing polling stations or the voting by postal ballot would be a preferable method. Then, we shall have occasion to agree to that method. I think Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor has already agreed that this may be taken up when we consider clause 61.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: My suggestion is that the House should decide this matter. If you think that the House had better decide clause 61 first leaving clause 59 without being decided on now. I am quite agreeable to that. But we do not want this House to leave it to the tender mercies of the mover of the Bill either to move a similar amendment or not. We would like clause 61 to be disposed of first before clause 59.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order. It is not right to suggest like that, because the matter is in the hands of the Chair. The Chair has to find which thing has to be moved first and which thing next. The Mover has expressed his sympathy with the amendment. Why should it be said that the matter be left to his tender mercies ?
Shri J. R. Kapoor: I would submit that there does not seem to be any difference of opinion with regard to the acceptance of the principle of my amendment. So, I would say nothing on that. The only question is how the substance of