Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.116-A and s.100(1)(a) and (d)(i) – Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 – Part VIII of the Schedule – Validity of election – Appellant filed his nomination papers declaring therein that he belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste as per Caste Certificate from a Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes – Appellant was elected – Election of the Appellant was challenged – The ground of challenge laid therein was that the Appellant’s paternal grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kerala and since the Appellant’s grandparents on the paternal side were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and their successors were not entitled to claim that they belonged to ‘Hindu Parayan’ of Kerala State – Further, it was contended that the Appellant was a Christian and not entitled to contest from a Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes – High Court declared the election of the Appellant void – Correctness: Held: The twin conditions needing to be satisfied would be (i) being of the Hindu Parayan caste, and; (ii) being, himself/herself or through one’s ancestors, permanent resident of the State of Kerala as on the date of the 1950 Order – Upon fulfilment of both these conditions, a person can claim a legal right to derive any benefits available to Hindu Parayan caste in the State of Kerala – In the instant case, fulfilment of the same would enable the Appellant to become eligible to contest from the Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes – There is no dispute on the factum that, originally, the grandparents of the Appellant belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste in the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin having migrated from the State of Tamil Nadu but prior to 1950 – In this regard, there is sufficient evidence available on the record – As far as contention that appellant is Christian is concerned, mere observance/performance of a ritual of/associated with any religion does not ipso facto and necessarily mean that the person ‘professes’ that religion – That is why the term used in the 1950 Order is ‘professes’, signifying that a person although born in a particular religion can profess another religion, inter alia, by practicing the rituals of that other religion as the basic tenets of his beliefs and lifestyle – Adherence merely to some ritual of another religion would not tantamount to giving-up the original religion, unless the person concerned makes such belief explicit – From the evidence available, it is not possible to hold that the Appellant ‘professes’ Christianity – The evidence adduced from the side of the Appellant would reveal that the Caste Certificate(s) issued in his favour by the Competent Authority till date hold the field – The Appellant’s Caste Certificate has not been interfered with, either by the Impugned Judgment or by the authority(ies) concerned – High Court erred by shifting the burden of proof on the Appellant to prove in the negative the allegations – Further, even the entries in the Register are not conclusively established in the sense that they relate to the Appellant or his family members – Apropos this, the High Court has noticed many over-writings, edits and deletions re the purported names of the Appellant and his parents as alleged to have appeared in the Register – This has prompted the High Court to note that ‘fabrication and correction’ were made to the entry(ies) in the Register(s) – The High Court, on the whole, accepted whatever was presented by the Respondent and in such approach, disregarded and ignored the material lacuna in the pleadings of the Election Petition as also the evidence brought in by the Respondent – Election Petitioner is obligated to plead and prove his case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant retained the Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when he contested from the constituency – Impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – Election petition dismissed – Appellant entitled to all consequential benefits as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. [Paras 30, 34, 36, 50, 57, 58, 59]
Election Laws – Challenge to the caste certificate in election petition – Position of law:
Held: A duly issued Caste/Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition – In case no statute governing the field in a State/Union Territory is operative, the Madhuri Patil guidelines, as modified in Dayaram, shall be followed. [Para 64]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such const. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.