PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 777
question which we have to consider and which is the question which my hon. Friend has raised, although not in those technical terms. The answer to that question is this, that the jurisdiction of Parliament for punishing people or taking proceedings against people for contempt—this is a case of contempt—is not confined to Members of Parliament, but it also extends to the members of the public who have committed contempts of the Parliament and I shall read a little passage which I have bodily taken from “May”:
“The penal jurisdiction of the Houses is not confined to their own Members nor to offences committed in their immediate presence, but extends to all contempts of the houses whether committed by Members or by persons who are not Members, irrespective of whether the offence is committed within the house or beyond its walls.”
Therefore, the jurisdiction of parliament to protect itself against contempt which is one aspect of the breach of privilege, is not confined to Members of Parliament. It extends to all citizens. No citizen shall commit any act which would amount to contempt of the privilege of the House. Therefore, assuming for the purposes of argument that the resignation of Shri Mudgal which has been tendered to you now becomes effective immediately, nonetheless my submission is that the jurisdiction of this house to proceed against him continues. He cannot escape it. What form the punishment may take is a different matter which may be considered when we actually come to that. If the contention of my hon. Friend Pandit Maitra is that by submitting your resignation you escape the jurisdiction of Parliament, then I think that it is absolutely wrong.
Pandit Maitra: I put it in a different way.
Dr. Ambedkar: I have put it in a way which is more intelligible.
Pandit Maitra : Once an action is set in motion, it cannot be anybody’s case that it can never be interrupted.
Dr. Ambedkar: So long as the jurisdiction exists, the action may continue.