776 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
moment one delivers in writing his resignation to you in his own hand it is effective. And in this case he has delivered his letter of resignation in person to you, Sir, presiding over this House. There is nowhere provided in the Constitution that there should be a time-lag. Therefore, the question that would arise is whether or not when an hon. Member delivers his resignation on the floor of parliament, into the hands of the Chair, he vacates his seat forthwith. If he does vacate his seat, wherein lies the scope for further action on this motion ? That is a matter to be considered. I am not going to criticise your ruling ( Interruption ). Of course, my friend might sit in the Chair, but at the moment I do not accept his interpretation. Sir, we have closely to apply our mind because we are laying down a precedent for future guidance. I am interested from that point of view, not from the point of view of the merit of the case. The Parliamentary Committee has gone into considerable detail, devoting much time and considerable energy to this matter. With what object? In order that this whole question may be investigated, thrashed out and decided. The hon. Member having made a statement straightaway tenders his resignation and leaves the House. The question is whether you take this stand that once a proceeding has been set in motion it can never be interrupted ; or whether if due to any voluntary act of the person concerned, or if by reason of accident or death that man is removed from the scene the proceedings are to be continued. This is a very important matter to be carefully considered before you give your ruling. You are laying down for the first time in the history of this Parliament a precedent which will be the guide for the future.
Dr. Ambedkar: May I add a word or two with your permission, to what I stated, because I feel that probably my statement has not been quite complete as it should have been. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend Pandit Maitra has raised this question. I think it is desirable to have our mind clear about this matter. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will put the matter in a somewhat technically legal fashion, and it is this. When a Member has been charged with a breach of privilege and before the proceedings have been concluded he resigns, is it a case that Parliament has lost its jurisdiction over him because he has resigned ? That I think is the