PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 715
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The courts do not seem to have any jurisdiction in this matter. Under the Constitution, the matter has to be referred to the President, who will decide it in consultation with the Election Commissioner.
Dr. Ambedkar: May I enlighten my hon. friend and tell him how exactly the question arose ? Some Members of Parliament reported certain cases to the Speaker. They said that in their opinion certain Members were holding offices of profit. It is the Speaker who referred the matter to the President and it is the President who asked us to regularise this matter. We have not taken the initiative ourselves.
Shri Sidhva : I know that. But my argument was different. I was referring to the fact that only four categories have been mentioned by the Hon. Minister while there are a number of other Members who have been serving on various committes. According to the Hon. Minister, these persons may not be disqualified but according to the Supreme Court they may be disqualified.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : How does the Supreme Court come in here ?
Shri Sidhva: Well, it is the President. Even if it is a matter to be decided by the President, I do not want any ambiguity to prevail. Supposing the President interprets the case differently and says, “Yes, you are disqualified” ? What then ? The Hon. Minister was right enough when he said that it would have dislocated the administration if these Members have been asked to resign. He also stated that these Members never knew that they would be disqualified under the new Constitution. These were honest intentions, I believe. So, why not embody them in this legislation ? I have mentioned nearly twenty-five committes and I hope all the other hon. Members would press for their inclusion.
Dr. Ambedkar: I am sure you have omitted to mention some.
Shri Sidhva: You add them, I will be only too glad. You should come to our rescue rather than do otherwise. Why should 50 per cent. of the Members of this House run the