PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 697
not be an illegal practice. There is sufficient punishment awarded there but why should an innocent candidate be penalized, if some persons without his knowledge publish a circular saying ‘vote for so and so’ on the day of election and that would entail in the election being invalidated and his being punished with disqualification.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I wish to say that I do not think that we are in a position to delete this clause but all the same there is great force in the argument advanced by my friend Mr. R. K. Chaudhuri that if a person does this sort of thing, it should not affect the candidate unless the candidate has knowledge of it or he is conniving at it. It would be better to make it illegal under section 124.
In regard to section 99, this should not have any effect on the candidate. This was the general view in the meeting wherein this question was considered. I would therefore request that section 99 should be open for consideration later.
Dr. Ambedkar: That may be considered.
Mr. Speaker: That means this clause may be put as it is.
Pandit Kunzru: I strongly appose the amendment put forward by Dr. Ambedkar. You will see from the amendment that proposes is not that a party would carry on
9-00 P . M . general propaganda in favour of its candidate. But that a party should be free to do what it can in support of particular candidates. That a party should in a general way, support its own candidates is recognised everywhere but that it should support particular candidates and that the expenditure incurred by it not on carrying on general election propaganda but in support of a particular candidate should not be shown in the return of the election expenses of that candidate raises a very important issue. In England too the rights of the various parties to incur expenses in connection with their propaganda is recognised. But the expenditure incurred in support of any particular candidate is according to the exposition of Dr. Ambedkar, to be shown in the return of the election expenses of that candidate. Is there any reason why we should follow a separate practice