HC Deb 08 February 1937 vol 320 cc5-7
5. Mr. Thurtle

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many candidates nominated for elections in the different Provinces in India have been disqualified on the ground that they have served sentences of imprisonment within the last five years, as laid down in Section 69 (e) of the Government of India Act, 1935?

Mr. Butler

I regret that I have not this information, but have asked for it.

10. Mr. T. Williams

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that H. N. Shastri, a former president of the Indian Trade Union Congress, and now a member of a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act XVI of 1926, was nominated in congress and trade union interests as a candidate for the elections to the United Provinces Legislatures; that the nomination was declared invalid by the returning officer under Section 69 (e) of the Government of India Act, 1935; and whether, seeing that Mr. Shastri has not been convicted and sentenced for any single offence or on any single occasion for a period of two years or more, he will have this case inquired into?

9. Mr. R. J. Taylor

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India for what offences, and under what Sections of the criminal law or the ordinances, and for what periods, Mr. H. N. Shastri was sentenced to imprisonment; and whether these sentences were served concurrently, or passed on the same occasion, or on the same charge of series of charges?

Mr. Butler

Mr. Shastri received three sentences. The first, on 29th November, 1930, under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, was 18 months; the second, on 13th February, 1932, under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, was one year; and the third, on 23rd February, 1932, under Section 23 of Ordinance II of 1932, was one year. The total of these sentences was 3½ years, and the returning officer, after hearing both parties, found that Mr. Shastri was disqualified under Section 69 (1) (e) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The orders of the returning officer are final, but it is open to Mr. Shastri to test the correctness of the rejection of his nomination by an election petition.

Mr. Williams

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of all the nominations that have been handed in for the United Provinces, whether imprisonment has been served by candidates or not, this is the only nomination which has been disqualified, and will he have special inquiries made into this case to ascertain whether or not the Section referred to, Section 69 (e), does give the interpretation placed upon it by the disqualifying officer?

Mr. Butler

This was a matter of some doubt at the time, but the electoral rules provide that the decision of the returning officer on this matter is final. Therefore my Noble Friend does not think he can intervene with the authority. The possibility of filing an election petition is open to Mr. Shastri.

Mr. Williams

As this happens to be the only disqualification in the United Provinces, and as the nominee happens to be the only representative of the Indian Trade Union Congress, are we to assume from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the workers' representation can be and is likely to be nullified as a result of the returning officer's judgment?

Mr. Butler

The hon. Gentleman should know well that it is not our intention to prejudice workers' candidates in the elections. This gentleman was convicted under three charges, and the returning officer found that he should be disqualified. If Mr. Shastri is aggrieved, he should file an election petition.

Mr. Williams

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Section referred to says "two years' imprisonment," and that on no occasion has Mr. Shastri been sentenced to two years' imprisonment?