PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 641
Clause 85
*** Shri Satish Chandra:** The House adjourned yesterday to discuss the amendments informally. We adjourned from that informal meeting at 1 o’clock and I gave notice of my amendment at 1 P . M . But it has been admitted in today’s date.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was this matter discussed and agreed upon in the informal committe?
Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, it was agreed upon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was it agreed that no advocate ought to be there ?
Dr. Ambedkar: Nobody wants any advocate. The matter can arise only by deleting part (b) of sub-clause (2). It cannot arise on this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even accepting the clause as it stands he cannot avoid any advocate.
Shri Satish Chandra: I would suggest that this clause may be held over. The Members had no opportunity of giving any notice of amendments after yesterday’s informal discussion. Notice has been given by me after the discussion but it will come up only tomorrow. If you allow me to move my amendment of which I have given notice, I shall do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not that I am bound by any of those decisions, but anyhow the hon. Member also had sat in that informal meeting which came to an agreed arrangement with reference to this matter. A contrary decision was arrived at there. Is it worthwhile my allowing the clause to stand over ?
Shri Satish Chandra: I would respectfully submit that out of the 320 Members of the House which adjourned yesterday for the specific purpose of holding an informal discussion on tabled amendments, not as many Members as the strength of the Select Committee on this Bill were present.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Who is to blame? The Hon. Minister ?
*P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 23rd May 1951, pp. 9284-85.