SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
S. Rajagopal, Appellant
Versus
C.M. Armugam and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1553 of 1967,
D/-3-5-1968.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate (M/s. Balakrishnan and S. S. Khanduja, Advocates with him), for Respondent No, 1.
–The question whether the Ist respondent abandoned Hinduism and embraced Christianity in 1949 is essentially question of fact and if, at the stage of the arguments before the High Court, the Ist respondent conceded that, in view of the decision in S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Arumugam, AIR 1969 SC 101 = 1969 (1) SCR 254, this question did not survive for consideration and the High Court, acting on the concession of the Ist respondent, refrained from examining the question on merits and proceeded on the basis that it stood concluded by such decision of the Supreme Court, how could the Ist respondent in the case of C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal, AIR 1976 SC 939, be permitted to reagitate this question at the hearing of the appeal? The Ist respondent must be held bound by the concession made by him on a question of fact before the High Court. The Supreme Court therefore held that it cannot permit the Ist respondent to raise an argument that the evidence on record does not establish that he embraced Christianity in 1949. The Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that he converted to Christianity in the year.
Judgement
BHARGAVA , J. : The appellant, S. Rajagopal, the respondent C. M. Armugam, and the other three respondents all filed nominations for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mysore in the last General Elections held in 1967. The nomination papers were scrutinised on 21st January 1967, when respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") raised an objection against the nomination of the appellant on the ground that the nominations were in respect of a seat reserved for a member of a Scheduled Caste, and the appellant was not an Adi Dravida Hindu, but an Indian Christian, so that he was disqualified to stand as a candidate for this reserved seat. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and accepted nomination paper of the appellant. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 withdrew their candidature, so that, when actual election took place, the two contesting candidates were the appellant and the respondent. The Constituency concerned was Kolar Gold Fields and polling in that constituency took place on 15th February, 1967. The appellant was declared as the successful candidate on the ground that he received a larger number of votes than the respondent. The respondent then filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on the same ground that he had taken before the Returning Officer, viz., that the appellant was not qualified to be a candidate to fill the seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste from the Kolar Gold Fields Constituency. The respondent admitted that the appellant was originally born as an Adi Dravida Hindu, but it was pleaded that he got himself converted as a Christian some time in the year 1949, shortly before he obtained admission in Woorhees High School at Vellore and to the Woorhees Christian Hostel attached to that School. The respondent s case was that, thereafter, the appellant continued to be a Christian and, consequently, he could not be held to be a member of the Scheduled Caste for his candidature for the reserved seat under the constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The appellant resisted this plea taken in the election petition on various grounds, but we are only concerned in this appeal with two of those grounds which formed the subject-matter of issues 1 and 3 framed by the High Court of Mysore at the trial of the election petition. Those issues are as follows.:-
" (1) Does the petitioner prove that on the date of election the respondent No. 1 was an Indian Christian (Protestant) by conversion and not a member of the Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida), professing Christian Religion and therefore, not qualified to stand for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly as a candidate for the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes from the Kolar Gold Fields Constituency and his election should be declared void under Section 100 (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
* * * * *
(3) Even if it is true that Respondent No. 1 got himself converted to Christianity, does the respondent prove the facts and the circumstances set out in Para 11 of the written statement and do they constitute in fact and in law conversion back to Hindu religion as alleged; and is it enough, in law, to give him the benefit of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950?"
2. The High Court took the evidence both documentary and oral, adduced by the parties on these issue and then decided both the issues against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. That Court, therefore, held that the election of the appellant was void, because he was not qualified to be a candidate for the seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste and, consequently set aside the election of the appellant. The appellant has now come up in appeal against that judgment under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was made by the Presi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.