778 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Sardar B. S. Man : On a point of order. The motion which is being discussed was permissible when it was introduced but now, due to subsequent happenings, it has become inadmissible. I want your ruling on this. You will see that the motion specifically says:
“That this House, having considered the Report of the Committee appointed on the 8th June 1951 to investigate into the conduct of Shri H. G. Mudgal, Member of Parliament...”
So, the question is not one of jurisdiction of parliament. We are discussing the conduct of a “Member of Parliament” and Shri Mudgal is no longer a “Member of Parliament”. Therefore, my contention is that the motion was admissible to start with, but due to subsequent happenings it has become in the meantime inadmissible and we can now no longer proceed with the discussion on this motion.
Shri Rajagopalachari: The more we argue in this manner the more clear it becomes to my mind that circumvention cannot be permitted. The terms and manner in which points are taken show that this is nothing but circumvention. Continuing what Dr. Ambedkar said, it must be remembered that punishments are additional in “May”. It says :
“In the case of contempts committed against the house of Commons by Members two other penalties are available...”
Expulsion is not the only penalty.
“ ...normally suspension from the service of the house and expulsion...”
Expulsion is an additional penalty available against Members, apart from any kind of punishment which the House is competent to pass against anyone who is guilty of contempt. Now that expulsion may, in the opinion of some Members, become impossible, because he has ceased to be a member, the house will have to consider other forms of punishment. The guilt and proceedings cannot be terminated by an act of the person who is charged.