PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 717
disqualification if anybody were to take the matter to the President, who will, of course interpret the law at the instance of the Law Ministry. The President will naturally consult Dr. Ambedkar and I am sure he will not give a different interpretation to the one that he has given now.
In the course of his speech Dr. Ambedkar did not refer to my amendment—probably he has not seen it. You will see that I have given in my amendment the names of twenty-nine committee on which Members have served. I do not know whether some may have received fees higher than the ones announced by the Finance Ministry. At any rate, I am not prepared to accept Dr. Ambedkar’s interpretation, when there are higher authorities to interpret the Constitution.
- Shri Karunakara Menon (Madras) : There are certain committees not formed by the Ministers as such but by the Government: for instance, the Central Arecanut Committee which is a committee constituted by the Government. The members of that Committee, among whom are Members of Parliament also, are nominated. What is to be done with respect to that Committeee ?
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I was myself on a similar Committe : the Indian Central Cotton Committee. But here the wording is “who holds any office of profit under the Government of India or in a State Government”. All these fall under the interpretation of Dr. Ambedkar of what an office of profit is. Even if you don’t agree, then as stated in the statement of objects and reasons it is a doubtful point. I cannot say definitely that such a membership is not an office of profit, and therefore it is certainly doubtful. Now what would happen to our new Parliamentary Secretaries ?
Dr. Ambedkar: Why do you want to raise problems which are not there ?
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: In clause 2 I find only Ministers can hold offices of profit. What about the Deputy Ministers ?
- P.D., Vol. 14, Part II, 7th August 1951, pp. 57-71.