PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 779
*Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us hear the Law Minister.
The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): The amendment moved by my friend. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has really nothing to do with the resignation by Mr. Mudgal. His amendment had been submitted long before the resignation.
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I would not have moved it. I had already decided not to move it and I gave expression to that view privately to the Government whip ; but I moved it simply because of this new contingency. When I tabled the amendment it was under a mistaken impression that the house had no jurisdiction, but later on I found that the house had full jurisdiction and I decided not to move it. Later on, in view of this contingency of resignation I thought this might be relevant, though at the time when I tabled the amendment there was no such purpose.
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not understand the motives and purposes of my hon. Friend.
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : No, it is difficult some times.
Dr. Ambedkar: But the fact remains that the notice of the amendment was given long before the resignation of Mr. Mudgal and the purpose of the amendment undoubtedly was to soften the punishment that was proposed in the original motion that was moved by the Hon. Prime Minister. The question that has now arisen is this : whether in view of the resignation of Mr. Mudgal the motion as moved by the Hon. Prime Minister could be carried out in its original form or whether any subsequent amendment is necessary. The whole question seems to me to hang on the other issue, namely whether the resignation of Mr. Mudgal is in order so that it could be accepted as resignation and take effect immediately. My submission to you, Sir, is that the act of resignation must be a simple act of resignation without expressing either the grounds for resignation or casting any aspersions on the House as to why the hon. Member is resigning. When the question was last raised you were good enough to say that
*P. D., Vol. 14, Part II, 25th September 1951, pp. 3271-75.