1. Election petition challenging candidate's eligibility for a scheduled caste constituency based on whether the candidate's caste is specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd September 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
B. Basavalingappa, Appellant
Versus
D. Munichinnappa and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 401 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. Dipak Choudhari, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. M. K. Nambiyar, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, G.S.PATHAK, M.K.NAMBIYAR, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN
DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, G.S.PATHAK, M.K.NAMBIYAR, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN
Presidential notifications under Article 341 are generally final; however, if a notified caste name does not exist in the relevant state, evidence is admissible to identify the intended caste, and English spelling variations of the same vernacular term are immaterial.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 341 - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 - Presidential notification specifying scheduled castes - Finality of notification - Whether evidence can be led to establish that a caste not specifically mentioned is the same as one mentioned in the Order - A notification issued under Article 341(1) is final and cannot be varied except by Parliament under Article 341(2); generally, it is not open to produce evidence to show that a caste not mentioned in the Order is part of or the same as a notified caste (Paras 5, 6).
(B) Exception to finality - Where the caste mentioned in the Order does not exist by that specific name in the relevant State, courts may take evidence to determine which caste was intended by the notification to avoid the absurdity of including a non-existent caste (Para 7).
(C) Spelling variations - Differences in English spelling of the same vernacular term should not be given undue importance when determining the identity of a caste for the purposes of the Order (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
An election was challenged on the ground that the successful candidate did not belong to a scheduled caste. The candidate claimed to belong to a caste listed in the Presidential Order, whereas it was contended that the candidate belonged to a different caste not specified in the Order. The election tribunal set aside the election, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the candidate's caste was the same as the one listed in the Order.
Findings of Court:
It was undisputed that no caste by the specific name mentioned in the Order existed in the State at the time the Order was passed. Evidence showed that the candidate's caste had officially changed its name to a term similar to the one in the Order. The court found that the various English spellings used in government records referred to the same community.
Issues: Whether evidence is admissible to identify the intended caste when the name specified in the Presidential notification under Article 341 does not correspond to any existing caste in the region.
Ratio Decidendi: While Presidential notifications under Article 341 are generally final and cannot be expanded by evidence, if the notified name does not exist in the state, courts must determine the identity of the intended caste through evidence. Variations in English spelling of a single vernacular term are immaterial in such circumstances.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a person can claim membership of a scheduled caste through evidence if their specific caste name is not mentioned in the Presidential Order. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Evidence to identify a caste is permissible only when the name used in the Presidential Order does not correspond to any existing caste in the region. (Para 7 , 10 )
4. Where a notified caste name does not exist in the state, evidence may be led to determine the actual caste intended by the Presidential Order. (Para 7 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed; candidate held to belong to the scheduled caste. (Para 11 )
6. Can evidence be used to prove a caste is a scheduled caste if it is not explicitly listed in the Presidential Order?
Generally, evidence cannot be used to show a caste is part of another notified caste. However, if the notified name does not exist in the state, evidence is permissible to determine which caste was intended by the President. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 )
7. What is the legal effect of a notification issued by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution?
A notification issued by the President specifying scheduled castes is final. It cannot be varied by subsequent notifications and can only be modified by law enacted by Parliament. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Does a variation in the English spelling of a caste name affect its recognition as a scheduled caste?
No. If the underlying caste is the same and English spellings vary, the court may treat them as identical, particularly when the notified name does not specifically exist in the region. (Para 10 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.:-The is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High Court in an election matter. An election was held to the Bangalore South (Scheduled Castes) constituency in February 1962. Four persons stood for election including the appellant and Munichinnappa respondent No. 1, who obtained the highest number of votes and was declared elected. The appellant then filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 on a number of grounds. In the present appeal we are concerned only with one ground, namely, that respondent No. 1 was not a member of any of the scheduled castes mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). Respondent No. 1 claimed that he belonged to the scheduled caste listed as Bhovi in the Order. The appellant on the other hand contender that respondent No. 1 was a Voddar by Caste and that Voddar was not a scheduled caste specified in the Order and consequently respondent No.1 could not stand for election from a scheduled caste constituency. The Election Tribunal held that the caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order was a sub-caste amongst the Voddars and that only this sub-caste was included in the Order and not the entire Voddar caste. The Tribunal also held that respondent No. 1 did not belong to the sub-caste of Bhovi and, therefore, was not eligible for standing as a candidate from the scheduled caste constituency. Consequently the election was set aside and reelection ordered by the Tribunal.
2. Respondent No. 1 went in appeal to the High Court and his contention was that he belonged to the scheduled caste Bhovi mentioned in the order and was, therefore entitled to stand for election from the scheduled caste constituency. The High Court held Voddar caste as such was not included in the Order, but considering the facts and circumstances in existence at the time when the Order was passed in 1950, the Bhovi caste mentioned therein no other than Voddar caste. It, therefore, allowed the appeal holding that respondent No. 1 being a Voddar must be held t be a member of the Bhovi caste mentioned in the Order and dismissed the election petition. The High Court having refused leave to appeal, the appellant got special leave from this Court and that is how the matter has come up before us.
3. The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that a person is only entitled to stand for election from a scheduled caste constituency if he is a member of a caste specifier in the Order and that it is, not open to anyone to claim that though he is not a member of a caste specified in the order and is a member of some other caste that other caste is included in the caste specified in the Order. It is submitted that where a caste has more than one name, the Order specifies the other name in brackets. and that even where a particular caste is spelt in more than one way, the Order has included in the same entry the various spelling of the same caste. Therefore as the caste Bhovi specified in the Order does not mention the caste Voddar in brackets thereafter, it was not open to the Tribunal to take evidence to the effect the Voddar caste is no other than the Bhovi caste. It is, therefore urged that the High Court was wrong in looking into the evidence that was produced before the Tribunal and then coming to the conclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned in the Order was meant for the caste Voddar and that such evidence should not have been allowed by the Tribunal. If such evidence had not been allowed the respondent who is a Voddar by caste could not stand for election for the Voddar caste is not mentioned in the order at all.
4. Article 341 of the Constitution which deals with scheduled castes is as follows:-
"(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races, or tribes or parts of or groups wit
