On 18th May 1949, at the Constituent Assembly, Ms. Srimathi G. Durgabai moved an Amendment regarding the qualification to be elected to Legislature, and spoke as follows;
Sir, I beg to move that in the new Article 68A [qualifications proposed for insertion of Article 68 in Clause B for the word [thirty five] be substituted to 30].
The Object of this is to lower the age to 30 from 35 for a seat in the Council of State. It was held for some time that greater age confers greater wisdom for men and women, but in the new condition we find our boys and girls more precocious and more alive to their sense of responsibilities. Wisdom does not depend on age it was held that the upper house consisted of elders who should be of a higher age as it was a revising chamber, which would act as a check on hasty legislation but this is not an old story and the old Order has been replaced by the new as I said our boys and girls are now more precocious and educational curriculum is now broad-based that it will educate them very well in respect of their civic rights and duties I therefore think we should give a chance to these younger people to be trained the affairs of the State. I said wisdom does not depend on age our present Prime Minister became the President of Congress before he was 40 and the PITT was 24 when he became Prime Minister of England therefore we have no reason to fear that because a man is only 30 he will not be able perform his functions relations to the State. I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
On the same day that is on 18th May 1949, Mr. Tajamul Hussain spoke as follows;
Sir, I am reminded of the Persian couplet which says BAZRGI BA AQL AST NA DA SAL. KAWAN GRI BA DIL AST NA BA MAL –
The first part means that seniority is not according to age but according to wisdom. I shall not translate second part. If a person is the genius why prevent him from entering the Council of State though he may be under thirty. Mr. Kamath mentioned example of younger PITT. There was the case of Shankaracharya, who died in the age of 33 but before that he attained a position of world teacher there were instances of Rama, Krishna and Buddha who attained enlightenment when very young, there are many other instances in History Sir I strongly support Amendment moved by Srimathi Durgabai.
As regards the Amendment of Dr. Ambedkar I do not see eye to eye with it. There are three qualification mentioned I am of opinion that qualification of a person to fill a seat in the Parliament is that he should be a voter on the list the moment a man’s name is on the voters list we cannot prevent him from either standing for an election or voting. Election Officer will be there and after the identification is completed nobody can prevent in from voting – if he is not 35 but 25 – why prevent him from stranding as a Candidate? Ordinary principles of law is that a person can vote and he can also stand for the election the amendment we go against a well recognised principles as it will mean that the voter cannot stand for election this should be withdrawn by Dr. Ambedkar. Once a man is a voter he should be eligible for election and therefore Sir I oppose the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar with a request that we should make suitable change in it.
Comment: The age, which is of a bureaucratic nature, shall not be encouraged. A person who is of 25 years even though he has obtained a PhD [political science] can only vote but he cannot aspire for a seat.