Section VI

(3) That in the Table, under the heading “Graduates’ Constituencies” against the entry “Central Division (Graduates)” in column 1, for the entry “Central Division” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Central Division excluding Poona City.”

(4) That in the Table, under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies” against the entry “Bombay City (Teachers)” in column 1, for the entry “Bombay City” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Greater Bombay.”

(5) That in the Table, under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies” against the entry “Northern Division (Teachers)” in column 1, for the entry “Northern Division” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Northern Division excluding Bombay suburban Districts and Ahmedabad City.”

(6) That in the Table, under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies” against the entry “Central Division (Teachers’)” in column 1, for the entry “Central Division” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Central Division excluding Poona City”.

(7) That in the Table, under the heading “Local Authorities’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Bombay City (Local Authorities)” in column 1, for the entry “Municipal Corporation of Bombay City” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Area under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.”

(8) That in the Table, under the heading “Local Authorities’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Ahmedabad City (Local Authorities)” in column 1, for the entry “Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Area under the jursdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad.”

(9) That in the Table, under the heading “Local authorities’ Constituencies” against the entry “Ahmedabad District (Local Authorities)”, in column 1, for the entry “Ahmedabad District (excluding Ahmedabad City Municipal Corporation) and Sabarkantha District” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Ahmedabad District (excluding the area under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad) and Sabarkantha District.”

(10) That in the Table, under the heading “Local Authorities’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Poona City (Local Authorities)” in column 1, for the entry “Municipal Corporation of Poona City” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Area under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corpration of Poona.” (11) That in the Table, under the heading “Local Authorities’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Poona (Local Authorities)”, in column 1, for the entry “Poona District excluding Poona City Municipal Corporation” occurring in column 2, the following be substituted, namely:— “Poona District (excluding the area under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Poona.”

COUNCIL CONSTITUENCIES (MADRAS) ORDER

Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move :

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Madras) Order, 1951, laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— (1) That at page 1, in the Table, under the heading “Graduates’ Constituencies” against the entry “Madras South (Graduates)” in column 1, for the words “Madras City, and the Chingleput” occurring in column 2, the words “Madras, Chingleput” be substituted.

(2) That at page 2, in the Table, under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies” against the entry “Madras South (Teachers)” in column 1, for the words “Madras City” and the Chingleput” occurring in column 2, the words “Madras, Chingleput” be substituted.

COUNCIL CONSTITUENCIES (MYSORE) ORDER

Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move:

That the following modification be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Mysore) Order, 1951, laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— That in the Table, the word “Revenue” wherever it occurs, be omitted. PARLIAMENTARY AND ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES (MADRAS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move :

(1) That the following modification be made in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Madras) (Amendment) Order 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— ‘That at page 17, in Item (69)—“Villages comprising the firka of Vaniyambadi in Tirupattur Taluk”—for the words “and Chinnakallupalli” occurring at the end, the words “Chinnakallupalli and Devasthanam” be substituted.’

(2) That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Madras) (Amendment) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely :—

1. That at page 1, in para 2 (b), in the proposed Explanation, for the words “area comprising the villages” the word “areas” be substituted.

2. That at page 2, for para 5 of the said Order the following be substituted, namely :— “5. in item (23) of the Appendix to the said Order, for the words “Sevalur part, Pothuravuthampatti, Manapparai” the words “Manapparai panchayat” shall be substituted.

3. That in para 6,— (i) in item (2) of the Schedule, for the words “Pitali, Sirimamidi and Gollagandi” the words “Pitali and Sirimamidi” be substitued;

(ii) in item (14) of the Schedule, after the words “Venkampeta near Ramavaram” the word “Ramavaram.” be inserted; (iii) in item (21) of the Schedule, after the word “Derasan,” the word “Pydibhimavaram” be inserted ;

(iv) in item (63) of the Schedule, after the words “Koppedu Kapula, Kandriga,” the word “Agaram,” be inserted; (v) in item (80) of the Schedule, for the word “Kallupatti” where it occurs for the second time, the word “Sethupatti” be substituted ;

(vi) in item (87) of the Schedule, for the word “Aruppukkottai” the words “Aruppukkottai Municipality” be substituted ; (vii) in item (93) of the Schedule, for the words and brackets “Devakottai Rural (Eravaseri)” the words and brackets “Devakottai Municipality, Eravaseri (Rural)” be substituted; and (viii) in item (95) of the Schedule, for the words and brackets “Keppapatnam (Manamathurai Panchayat Board)” the words “Kepparpatnam, Manamadurai Panchayat” be substituted. PARLIAMENTARY AND ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES (UTTAR PRADESXH) (AMENDMENT) ORDER Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move:

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Uttar Pradesh) (Amendment) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— (1) That at page 1, in para. 2 (ii), after the words “but including Mohammadi,” the words “Atwa Piparia,” be inserted.

(2) That at page 1, in para. 2 (iii), after the bracket and words “excluding Mohammadi,” the words “Atwa Piparia,” be inserted. (3) That at page 2, in para, 3 (i), in the Table for the entry “Pauri (North) cum Chamoli (East)” in column 1, the following entry be substituted, namely:— “Pauri (South)- cum-Chamoli (East)”

(4) That at page 2, after para. 3 (iii), the following new sub-para. be inserted, namely :— “(iiia) for the entries “ Mohammadi (West) and Mohammadi (East)” in column 1, and for the entries against them in column 2, the following entries be substituted, namely:— 12 Mohammadi (West) ... Moh ammadi, Atwa Piparia, Magadpur and Pasgawan Parganas of Mohammadi tahsil.

Mohammadi (East) ... Moham madi tahsil (excluding Mohammadi, Atwa Piparia, Magadpur and Pasgawan Parganas).”

*Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall take up Bihar first. Have they come to any arrangement ?

BIHAR ORDER

Dr. Ambedkar (Bombay): I had a meeting with several Members who have tabled amendment motions to my main motion with regard to the Constituencies Orders issued by the President. The arrangement arrived at is this. Out of list 4, I accept amendment No. 6, parts 1 and 2 (amendment moved by Shaikh Mohiuddin and Mr. Kshudiram Mahata). Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand there are only two parts. The Hon. Minister is accepting both the parts ? Dr. Ambedkar: Anyhow, I would like to particularise the parts ; I accept parts 1 and 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is all with respect to Bihar ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes.

* P. D., Vol. 16, Part II, 11th October 1951, pp. 4617-20.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall put it to the House. Any other hon. Members wanting to speak ?

Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): Before we accept the Bihar order, will the Hon. Minister kindly state what are the actual changes that he is accepting? Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are no changes made. The amendment as a whole is accepted. I shall read it. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: Because there stand in the name of Mr. Kshudiram Mahata several amendments. Therefore we would like to know exactly.

Dr. Ambedkar: After accepting certain amendments moved by the hon. Members, I thought that there might be some point of order that might be raised against them in view of the fact that in certain cases there were amendments to propositions which did not exist at all. Therefore, I thought it much better to take upon myself the responsibility of moving these amendments so that there may be no point of order arising.

Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: I am not raising any point of order. I only wished to understand the particular amendment of Mr. Mahata which was being accepted. If you will kindly read out or if the Hon. Minister will explain, we will know what exactly the position is.

Dr. Ambedkar: The position is this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I suggest one thing ? I shall allow the Hon. Law Minister to move the amendment which he accepts. Thereafter, I shall consider the other amendments. If they are barred, they will be barred. If any other hon. Member wants to move any amendments which are not barred, the House will consider them. The amendments have already been moved. If they want to speak, they may speak.

Dr. Ambedkar: The amendments moved by Sheikh Mohiuddin and Shri Kshudiram Mahata deal with the spliting up of the Graduates Constituency for the Council of

States. Originally, in the Order issued by the President, the grouping was done in a different manner. The Members of the Committee which I had invited mentioned that the Order proposed by Sheikh Mohiuddin and Mr. Mahata should be adopted; in other words, there should be a separate division for Patna, a separate division for Tirhut, and separate division for Bhagalpur and a separate division for Chota Nagpur. On the whole I thought that there was some substance in the arguments presented by these two Members who had taken upon themselves the responsibility to move these amendments. The same has been done with regard to the Teachers Constituencies for the Council of States. In other words, Bihar has been divided into four divisions. Patna, Tirhut, Bhagalpur and Chota Nagpur. So far as I could understand the sense of the Bihar Members who were present at that meeting the sense was unanimous in favour of the arrangement proposed by this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: He has only done this. Instead of the entire state being a single constituency for Graduate in Bihar, it has now been divided into four constituencies, under this amendment.

Dr. Ambedkar: Both for Graduates and Teachers. Deputy Speaker: In the Order of the President, Graduates alone is noted.

Dr. Ambedkar: If you will kindly refer to list 4, Bihar, you will see......

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am putting the Teachers Constituency later. Hon. Members will refer to the Delimitation of Council of States Constituencies Order. In the Table. Bihar, Graduates is the earliest entry. The following is the amendment. In the place of the ‘Entire State’ as the Graduates Constituency in the second column, the hon. Member has given notice of his amendment that the entire State may be divided into four subdivisions for the purpose of elections. I shall put that to the House and then I shall come to Teachers later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is:

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Bihar) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:—

1. That in the Table, for the entry “ Bihar (Graduates)” in column 1 and all the entries occurring against it in columns 2 and 3 the following be substituted, namely:— 1 23 Patna Division (Graduates) Patna Division 2 Tirhut Division (Graduation) Tirhut Division 2 Bhagalpur Division (Graduates) Bhagalpur Division 1 Chota Nagpur Division (Graduates) Chota Nagpur Division 1

2. That in the Table, under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies” for all the entries occurring in columns 1, 2 and 3, the following be substituted, namely:— 1 23 Patna Division (Teachers) Patna Division 1 Tirhut Division (Teachers) Tirhut Division 1 Bhagalpur Division (Teachers) Bhagalpur Division 2 Chota Nagpur Division (Teachers) Chota Nagpur Division 2 The motion was adopted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s Order relating to the Teacher’s Constituency relating to Bihar stands modified to this extent.

Also, the President’s Order relating to the Teachers’ Constituency relating to Bihar stands modified to this extent. Have all the other hon. Members who have moved amendments to this Order the leave of the House to withdraw them ?

The amendments were, by leave, withdrawn.

BOMBAY ORDER

Dr. Ambedkar: With regard to the Bombay Order (Council) I accept Amendment No. 1 in List No. 1 parts 1 and 2 by Shri Deogirikar and others, as modified by amendment No. 3 in List No. 3 by Shri Deogirikar.

I may explain the substance of these amendments which is the same as the substance of the amendments which we have accepted in respect of the Bihar Order. The original Order issued by the President distributing the graduates seats between Bombay, Ahmedabad and Poona in certain proportion gave two seats to Bombay and one seat combined to Ahmedabad and Poona. It was the desire of Shri Deogirikar and others who has tabled the amendment to modify this distribution. They wanted first a rotation between Ahmedabad and Poona or one seat, going to each by turn. I do not think this rotation system is good, however, I accepted that it may be desirable to treat all the towns like Bombay, Poona and Ahmedabad on an equal footing although it was not possible to assess the total strength of all the graduates residing in those particular towns. Consequently I accepted the amendment so as to distribute the seats between Bombay, Poona and Ahmedabad equally, one each; and I have done the same thing with regard to the Teachers’ Constituency also. The motion was adopted.

*Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s order relating to the Bombay Teachers’ Constituency stands modified to the extent of the amendment that has been accepted by the House. So also the President’s order relating to the Bombay Graduates’ Constituency stands modified to the extent of the amendment that has been a accepted by the House. Dr. Ambedkar: I request leave of the house to withdraw parts (1) to (6) of my amendment No. 2 in List No. 2 Bombay order (Council) in consequence of the acceptance of the amendment of Shri Deogirikar and others.

Parts (1) to (6) of the amendment were, by leave, withdrawn.

* P. D., Vol. 16, Part II, 11th October 1951, pp. 4621-22.

*Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s order stands modified in the extent of this amendment, in addition to the modification effected by the amendment of Shri Deogirikar. The question is :

That the following modifications ho made in Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Madras) Order, 1951, laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely : — (1) That at page 1, in the Table, under the heading “Graduates’ Constituencies” against the entry “Madras South (Graduates)” in column 1, for the words “Madras City, and the Chingleput” occurring in column 2, the words “Madras, Chingleput” be substituted.

(2) That at page 2, in the Table, under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies” against the entry “Madras South (Teachers)” in column 1, for the words “Madras City., and the Chingleput” occurring in column 2, the words “Madras, Chingleput” be substituted.

The motion was adopted.

Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I accept amendment No. 2 on List No. 2 (Madras Council Order) moved by Shri Kesava Rao. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is :

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Madras) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— That in the Table, in column 2, after the words “Malabar and South Kanara Districts” wherever they occur, the following be added, namely:— “and the West Cost Islands of Minicoy, Laccadives and Amindivis”.

The motion was adopted, Mr. Deputy Speaker: The president’s order relating to the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Madras) stands modified to the extent of the two amendments accepted by the House. UTTAR PRADESH ORDER

**Dr. Ambedkar: I am accepting amendment No. 1, Parts (1) and (2), second alternatives, by Babu Gopinath Singh. It provides for contiguity and hence I am accepting it.

*P. D., Vol. 16, Part II, 11th October 1951, p. 4624.

** Ibid., pp. 4425-26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is:

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Uttar Pradesh) Order, 1951, laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— (1) (i) That in the Table, under the heading “Graduates’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Uttar Pradesh West (Graduates)” in column 1, for all the words occurring in column 2, the words “Meerut, Agra, Jhansi, Allahabad and Faizabad Divisions” be substituted.

(ii) That in the Table under the heading “Graduates’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Uttar Pradesh East (Graduates)” in column 1, for all the words occurring in column 2, the words “Rohilkhand, Kumaun, Lucknow, Banaras and Gorakpur Division” be substituted.

(2) (i) That in the Table, under the heading “ Teachers’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Uttar Pradesh West (Teachers’)” in column 1, for all the words occurring in column 2, the words “Meerut, Agra, Jhansi, Allahabad and Faizabad Divisions” be substituted.

(ii) That in the Table under the heading “Teachers’ Constituencies”, against the entry “Uttar Pradesh East (Teachers)” in column 1, for all the words occurring in column 2, the words “Rohilkhand, Kumaun, Lucknow, Banaras and Gorakpur Divisions” be substituted.

The motion was adopted.

Dr. Ambedkar: I am prepared to accept amendment No. 2 in list No. 2 moved by Dr. C. D. Pande to the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Uttar Pradesh) Order, 1951. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is:

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Uttar Pradesh) Order, 1951, laid on the Table on the 20th September, 1951, namely:— (1) That in the Table, under the heading “Local Authorities’ Constituencies” against the entry “Uttar Pradesh North-East (Local Authorities)” in column 1 for the word “Shahjahanpur” occurring in column 2, the word “Budaun” be substituted. (2) That in the Table, under the heading “Local Authorities’ Constituencies” t against the entry “Uttar Pradesh Central (Local Authority)” in column 1, for the word “Budaun” occurring in column 2, the word “Shahjahanpur” be substituted, The motion was adopted.

The other amendments to the order were, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s Order relating to the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Uttar Pradesh)

stands amended by the amendments adopted by the House, which stood in the names of Babu Gopinath Singh and Dr. C. D. Pande.

WEST BENGAL ORDER

Dr. Ambedkar: I accept amendment No. 2 in List No. 2, standing in the names of Messrs. Samanta and Abdus Sattar, to the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (West Bengal) Order, 1951.

Shri Chattopadhyay (West Bangal): In view of the agreement reached I beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment. But before you put the motion to the House I have a doubt to be clarified which relates to the case of nominated members of local authorities. It has never been the desire of this Parliament or the Constituent Assembly that nominated members should have any right to vote in the matter of elections to Councils. We have provided in the Constitution that nominated members of the Upper Houses in the Centre as well as States should have no right to vote for the election of the President in this Constituency under discussion there are as many as two municipalities with a total strength of 24 members, who are all nominated and if they get the right of vote in the matter of election to the Council I think the Council in the State of Bengal will become something like a farce because the members of the Council elected by nominated members will stand on a par with the representatives sent by elected members. It was never the desire of Parliament nor the Constituent Assembly that nominated members of local bodies should have any right to vote in the matter of election of the President or in the matter of election to the Councils. It is due to oversight that a mistake of so grave character has crept in and I would like to know whether anything could be done to remedy the mistake.

Dr. Ambedkar: I see the significance of the point raised by my hon. friend but the difficulty is a constitutional difficulty. The Constitution does not make any distinction between nominated members and elected members. Although

I agree with my friend that it was not the intention of the Constituent Assembly to permit nominated members to take part in the election, as this matter was not brought to the attention of the Constituent Assembly, it is now impossible for us to do anything unless by amending the Constitution, which is of course an impossible proposition. Shri Chattopadhyay: May I know whether the State Government could do something to debar such members from being voters in the election and whether the State Government even at this stage could do away with their membership by an executive order?

Dr. Ambedkar: It is of course quite open to the local Assembly to pass another Municipal Act making the whole of the Municipality wholly elected, before the election takes place so that the difficulty raised by my friend can be obviated. But there is nothing which this Parliament can do in this matter.

Shri Chattopadhayay: May I know whether the Law Ministry is going to instruct the State Government to this effect ?

Dr. Ambedkar: I suppose it would be for the Prime Minister to take this point into consideration and to inform the Ministry if he thinks that it is desirable that the nominated members should not take part in the election. Shri Chattopadhayay: May I have the opinion of the Prime Minister in this matter ?

The Prime Minister (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru): I am sorry I have not quite followed the argument…… Dr. Ambedkar: The point, if I may tell the Prime Minister, is this, that there are certain Municipalities in West Bengal where a large number of the membership of the Municipality is by reason of nomination…….. Shri Sondhi (Punjab): In Punjab also.

Dr. Ambedkar: In Punjab also. In our Constitution, when we considered the question of the constitution of the Upper

Chamber we merely used the general expression “members of the municipality” without making it a qualification “elected members”. The question has arisen whether it is desirable that the nominated members of the municipality should also take part in the election of members to the Upper Chambers. The answer I gave was that although it is not possible for us to do a anything by reason of the fact that we have got this constitutional provision, still, as municipalities are a subject for the State it would be possible for the State Governments to modify their Municipal Acts so as to eliminate the nominated members from the Municipalities. The question put to me was whether the Central Government could do anything. I said the only answer that I could suggest was that perhaps the Prime Minister, if he so thought fit, might instruct the Chief Ministers of West Bengal or Punjab that this anomaly may be eliminated.

The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari): What the Law Minister means is that they may be eliminated from the Council—they cannot eliminate them from their functions under the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar: No, no.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So long as they are members of municipalities, nominated members, under the Constitution, are entitled to vote. The suggestion is not, that the Constitution may be modified overnight—the suggestion is, that if they modify the existing law relating to municipalities, dissolving all the existing municipalities, and before the election takes place, allow all the seats to be filled by election, then it would meet the purpose. But are we making suggestions now on the floor of the House, as to what ought to be done? Let us proceed. We have very little time left. The matter in hand is the Delimitation of Constituencies’ Orders. I do not think we should trouble the hon. Prime Minister unless he wants to do it himself. Let us proceed with the legitimate work before us.

MYSORE ORDER

*Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have the amendment in List No. 1.

Shri Shankaraiya (Mysore): Before it is put to the vote of the House I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister to consider that instead of deleting the word “Revenue “as it stands in column 2, it may be allowed to remain by putting if within brackets ; the effect will be the same. Removing the word or putting it in brackets will practically mean the same thing. By putting it in brackets it will be more clear and authentic.

Dr. Ambedkar: This is a purely administrative matter and we are acting upon the advice received from the Mysore Government that if the word u Revenue “is retained there might be some complications or mistakes arising. In view of that I must support this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is :

That the following modification be made in the Delimitation of Council Constituencies (Mysore) Order, 1951, laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely :— That in the Table, the word “Revenue” wherever it occurs, be omitted.

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To this extent the President’s Order stands modified.

The Council Constituencies Orders are over. The House will now proceed to the consideration of amendments relating to Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies. Dr. Ambedkar: We are now taking Amendment Orders. The President himself has issued certain Amending Orders and there are amendments to these Amending Orders.

*P. D., Vol. 16, Part II, 11th October 1951, pp. 4629-41.

PARLIAMENTARY AND ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES BOMBAY (AMENDMENT) ORDER

Dr. Ambedkar: I accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in List No. 2. All the others are going to be withdrawn. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is:

(i) That in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Bombay) (Amendment) Order, 1951, after item No. 2, the following new item No. 2A, be inserted, namely:— “2A. In Table A.-Parliamentary Constituencies of the said Order.— (i) against the entry “Ahmednagar North” in column 1 the words “Nandgaon Municipal Area” in column 2, shall be omitted ; and (ii) against the entry “Nasik Central” in column 1, the words “Nandgaon Municipal Area and in column 2 shall be-omitted.” (ii) That in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Bombay) (Amendment) Order, 1951 after item No. 3, the following new item No. 3A be inserted, namely: “3A. In Table B.—Assembly Constituencies of the said order.— (i) against the entry “North Malegaon” in column 1, for the existing entry in column 2, the following entry shall be substituted, namely:— ‘Malegaon Municipal Area and Maleaon Taluka excluding such of the villages as are specified in item (36) of the Appendix’.; (ii) against the entry “South Malegaon-North Nandgaon” in column 1, for the existing entry in column 2, the fallowing entry shall be substituted, namely:— ‘Such of the villages of Malegaon Taluka as are specified in item (36) of the Appendix; and Nandgaon taluka (excluding such of the villages as are specified in item (35) of the Appendix).’; and (iii) against the entry “Yeola-Nandgaon” in column 1, the words ...Nandgaon Municipal Area “in column 2, shall be omitted.”

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To this extent the President’s Order stands modified.

Have the other hon. Members who have tabled other amendments the leave of the House to withdraw them ?

The amendments were, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s Amendment order relating to Bombay was modified to the extent of the amendments accepted by the House.

MADHYA PRADESH (AMENDMENT ORDER)

Dr. Ambedkar: Sir I move amendment No. 1 in list No. 1 and amendment No. 3 in list No. 3. Amendment made: That the following modification be made in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Madhya Pradesh) (Amendment) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— That in sub-para, (i) of para. 3 of the Order, for the words “Ordinance Factory; Khamaria, Gun Carriage Factory” the words “Ordinance Factory Khamaria, Gun Carriage Factory Estate,” be substituted.

—[Dr. Ambedkar]

Further amendment made :

That the following modification be made in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Madhya Pradesh) (Amendment) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— That at page 1, after para. 3(i) of the Order, the following new sub-paras, (ia) and (ib) be inserted, namely:— ‘(ia) against the entry Nagpur 1” in column 1, for the existing entry in column 2 the following entry shall be substituted:— “Ward No. 1 including villages Somalwada Chichabhuwan, Ajni, Wards Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 37 and 38 and Ward No. 39 including villages Borgaon, Hazaripahad and Dhaba, Wards Nos. 40, 41 including villages Kachimeth and Sonegaon Sim and Ward no. 42 including villages Jaitala, Bhamti, Sonegaon (Bazar), Khamla, Takali Sim, Parsodi and Shiwangaon of Nagpur City of Nagapur tehsil.”;

(ib) against the entry “Nagpur IV” in column 1, for the existing entry in column 2 the following entry shall be substituted :— “Ward No. 8 including villages Babulkheda Sakardara, Manewada, Chikhali Khurd, Ward No. 10 including villages Harpur, Dighori, Bidpeth and Wathoda, Ward No. 22 including villages Hiwari, Pardi, Bhandewadi, Chikhali (Deosthan). Punapur and Bharatwada, Wards Nos. 23 and 24 including villages Kalamna, Wanjara and Wanzari, Wards Nos. 29 to 32, Ward No. 33 including Nari, Ward No. 34 including Takali (Big) and Gorewada, Ward No. 35 including villages Nara, Indora and

Mankapur and Ward No. 36 of the Nagpur City, and Nagpur R.I.C. (excluding patwari circles Nos. 1 and 10 to 12) of the Nagpur tehsil.”;’.

—[Dr. Ambedkar ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are the other amendments withdrawn by leave of the House ?

The amendments were, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s Amendment Order relating to Madhya Pradesh stands modified to the extent of the amendments accepted by the House.

MADRAS (AMENDMENT) ORDER.

Amendment made :

That the following modification be made in the’ Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Madras) (Amendment) Order, 1951 laid on the Table on the 20th September 1951, namely:— “That at page 17, in Item (69)—“Villages comprising the firka of Vaniyambadi in Tirupattur taluka”—for the words “and Chinnakallupalli” occurring at the end, the words “Chinnakallupalli and Devasthanam” be substituted.”

—[Dr. Ambedkar ]

Further amendment made:

That the following modifications be made in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Madras) (Amendment) Order, 1.951 laid on the Table on the 20th September, 1951 namely :—

1. That at page 1, in para. 2(b), in the proposed Explanation, for the words “area comprising the villages” the word “areas” be substituted.

2. That at page 2, for para. 5 of the said Order the following be substituted, namely :- “5. In item (23) of the Appendix to the said Order, for the words “Sevalur part, Pothuravuthampatti, Manapparai” the words “Manapparai panchayat” shall be substituted.”

3. That in para. 6,— (i) in item (2) of the Schedule, for the words “Pitali, Sirimamidi and Gollagandi” the words “Pitali and Shrimamidi” be substituted ;

(ii) in item (14) of the Schedule, after the words “Venkampeta near Ramavaram “the word “Ramavaram”, be inserted; (iii) in item (21) of the Schedule, after the word “Derasan,” the word “Pydibhimavaram” be inserted ;

(iv) in item (63) of the Schedule, after the words “Koppedu Kapula Kandriga”, the word “Agaram”, be inserted. (v) in item (80) of the Schedule, for the words “Kallupatu,” where it occurs for the scond time, the word “Sethupatti” be substituted;

(vi) in item (87) of the Schedule, for the word “Aruppukkottai” the words “Aruppukkottai Municipality “be substituted ; (vii) in item (93) of the Schedule, for the words and brackets “Devakottai Rural (Eravaseri)” the words and brackets “Devakottai Municipality, Eravaseri (Rural)” be substituted ; and (viii) in item (95) of the Schedule, for the words and brackets “Kepparpatnam (Manamathurai Panchayat Board)” the words “Kepparpatnam, Manamadurai Panchayat” be substituted. —[Dr. Ambedkar ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The President’s Amendment Order relating to Madras stands modified to the extent of the amendments accepted by the House.

UTTAR PRADESH (AMENDMENT) ORDER

Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh): It is not enough that an order making changes by the President is laid before the House nor is it enough that my hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar should propose further changes in them. We should like to know why these changes have become necessary…….. The constituencies as demarcated I think gave general satisfaction and we ought to be careful therefore in making changes in them. If my hon. friend the Law Minister tells me the precise reasons why the changes in the case of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies of U.P. have become necessary. It will be possible for us to decide whether we should vote with him or against him, but at present we are just helpless. We do not know what to do.

Dr. Ambedkar: I have no reason to complain against my hon. friend Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru for raising the point which he has raised, for undoubtedly every one of us should be very careful against permitting any kind of political gerry mandering in the making up of constituencies, and if there was any suspicion that any particular party was manoeuvring to change a constituency which has already been prescribed by the President and approved by the House it is a legitimate

matter to be raised on the floor of the House. But I would like to tell my hon. friend that so far as my information and knowledge go there is in this amendment not the slightest evidence of any kind of gerrymandering. The amendments which I have sought to make consist only of two things. One is to rectify errors which have crept in by some kind of inadvertence. Some thana which ought to have been mentioned has not been mentioned in the appropriate place and some other thana or some other place has been mentioned in its place. The second thing is that it has been discovered that in some of these cases where contiguity was possible, somehow by some mistake the principle of contiguity has been lost by the inadvertent mixture of some thanas from one constituency to another and an attempt is made in this amendment to remove these two errors, i.e. mistakes of a topographical kind and secondly mistakes which brought about a certain amount of discontiguity.

Pandit Kunzru: May I ask my hon. friend whether he is saying this with reference to his own amendment or with regard to the amendments in the President’s Order ? If he is saying this with reference to the president’s Order, then I should like him to turn to the changes proposed in the Garhwal constituency and tell me where the question of restoring contiguity exists. There is contiguity between the various parts of the constituency suggested. I know it is very difficult for him to deal with this local matter, but I mention it only in order to point out to him that the changes suggested are not due entirely to the reasons mentioned by him.

Dr. Ambedkar: May I continue, Sir ?

You will remember that last time when the President’s Order with regard to delimitation was passed by this house, out of caution I moved a motion that the Speaker of the house should be given power to make such changes as it may be found necessary in order to remove certain errors. Shri Kamath: Verbal errors, verbal amendments.

10-00 A. M.

Dr. Ambedkar: Verbal, minor, consequential or incidental—I think those were the words which were used. I was very careful to make the proposition as broad as I possibly could make for the simple reason that the House will remember that we carried the motion approving the orders of the President in great hurry and after great bustle and meetings, further meetings and further meetings. Notwithstanding that it has been discovered that even we were not in a position to advise the Speaker with regard to the errors that had crept in. Some errors, therefore, had remained and we thought this was the proper occasion to make some provision in order to eliminate the errors that still remained, notwithstanding the scrutiny of the Local Governments, the scrutiny of the Law Ministry and the scrutiny of the Speaker. I do not think my hon. friend Pandit Kunzru will go to the length of saying that simply because we have at one time passed the Orders as issued by the President, we should not take any further occasion to remove any errors that may still be remaining in the Orders.

With regard to the particular constituency to which he referred, he was good enough to suggest that I myself by my own knowledge or information was not in a position to give a correct answer whether a particular constituency was contiguous with the amendment that we are making in this Delimitation Order. We have to depend upon the Local Government on this matter. As he will remember I took particular care to call a meeting of the members of the Uttar Pradesh Delimitation Committee to aid and advise me on the grounds which were alleged for making these changes in the Uttar Pradesh Delimitation Orders, namely correcting errors and making contiguity more possible than it was, but unfortunately he could not come to that meeting. He was the President of the Uttar Pradesh Delimitation Committee and if notwithstanding the advice that has been given to us he still contends that some things have been done which do not produce contiguity, all that I can say is that the fault must lay on his shoulders, for he did not come to the meeting to advise me as to whether what I was doing was correct or not.

Pandit Kunzru: I received no such notice, Sir. Dr. Ambedkar: I think I did send a message to my hon. friend. My hon. friend sent it to me back with a note that with regard to certain amendments that I was accepting from Mr. Gopinath, he was perfectly prepared to support that amendment.

Pandit Kunzru: I was consulted only with regard to…....

Dr. Ambedkar: He was more interested in the Press Bill…….

Pandit Kunzru: ......suggestions made by the Committee appointed by the Speaker under the Representation of People Act, 1950 so far as the Legislative Council constituencies went and I gave my reply with regard to them.

As regard the other changes if the U.P. Government has informed the Central Government of the reason for proposing them why should my hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar not place those reasons before the House ? Shri T. N. Singh (Uttar Pradesh) : If I may be permitted as a Member of the Delimitation Committee, to speak. I should like to say that the changes proposed in this notification and as moved by the hon. the Law Minister are not exactly consequential or incidental. I have tried to go carefully into the various changes that are being proposed. Take, for instance, the Benaras District with which I am fully acquainted. I do not know for what reason another pargana, has been added, which means an increase in the number of voters. In regard to Garhwal, I do not know why Chamoli is being shunted about like this.

The Minister of State for Finance (Shri Tyagi): Which one is it ?

Shri T. N. Singh: It is not Dehra Dun: it is Garhwal. Shri Tyagi: I am equally interested.

Shri T. N. Singh: Similarly with regard to Kanpur— Farukhabad General Constituencies, the changes proposed do require careful looking into.

After having gone into all these questions in detail. I think it will be unfair to the House if it is not allowed to go into all the various aspects of the question. I would in this connection like to tell the House that under the guidance of our Chairman we went into the question in every detail, we went into the demarcation of every village, every patwari’s circle and devoted a lot of time to it……… But just at present, I find it really very difficult to support the amendment being in the dark and without knowing what it really means. Dr. Ambedkar: The position is this in regard to the first amendment, namely: That at page 1, in para. 2 (ii), after the words “but including Mohammadi,” the words “Atwa Piparia” be inserted. There is a place which is called Atwa Piparia which is not mentioned in the original order at all. That means the citizens of India who are residing in Atwa Piparia will not be entitled to take part in the election at all, because they do not form part of that particular constituency. In order to rectify this mistake, it has been proposed that this addition should be made. Now when this addition is made certain consequential amendments also have to be made in the other constituencies in order to bring them in line with the rules laid down in our Constitution that every constituency must have a certain number of voting strength and the representation distributed accordingly.

The main amendment there, as I am advised now, is only in regard to this Atwa Paparia. The rest of them are merely consequential. They have no substance except for the fact that they must be made if we accept the first amendment, namely to add “Atwa Piparia”. I think hon. Members will realize that the first amendment is absolutely essential because we cannot omit any particular part from any particular constituency. If we add something to that constituency and that constituency becomes bigger than the constituency contemplated for giving one single member, then