642 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Shri Satish Chandra: I do not blame the Hon. Minister.
Dr. Ambedkar: You yourself were present. Never mind whether others were present or not, you yourself were present.
Shri Satish Chandra: I objected to the amendment, but I was not allowed to have my full say. So, what I wish is that……..
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Member has not tabled an amendment.
Shri Satish Chandra: I have tabled an amendment and its copy is with me. It could not be on the order paper today. I gave it to the Notice Office yesterday after 1 P . M .
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a fundamental issue as to whether lawyers are to be trusted or not. Therefore, even before this amendment was tabled he had enough time to give notice of an amendment. I am prepared to waive notice if he is able to show either in the consolidated list or in any of the supplementary lists any amendment standing in his name saying that lawyers are taboo—I would not stand on formality. But if after yesterday’s discussion he thinks of a new thing I would not agree to it being moved now.
Shri Satish Chandra: I would submit that this majority of lawyers in the Election Tribunal was created only yesterday. It was not there before.
Dr. Ambedkar: In the amendment moved by my friend, Mr. Munishwar Datt Upadhyay there is no provision that there shall be a majority of lawyers. Only the chairman shall be a judicial officer, but the others may be non-judicial.
Shri Satish Chandra: The two persons out of three may be advocates. I do not know what else is a majority.
Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay: His amendment, if there is any, refers to another clause—it has nothing to do with this clause.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: He does not say he has any amendment.