SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. AND G.K. MITTER, J.
Goka Ramalingam, Appellant
Versus
Boddu Abraham and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1968, D/- 27-11-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. V. V. Nair, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. and Mr. Asif Ansari, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1.
– it was urged in the case of Goka Ramalingam v. Boddu Abraham, AIR 1970 SC 741, that the respondent be regarded as a Christian at the time he filed his nomination paper and that he was incompetent, to stand for the election from the reserved seat. In other words the petitioner wants to extract from the plea and the issue a very much narrower filed of enquiry, namely, that the answering respondent was not a Hindu on that date. This would have been a proper plea to take in the first instance. It is because of clumsy blundering that the petitioner undertook a much greater burden than the law required him, to take. He should have pleaded only that the returned candidate was a Christian on the date he filed nomination paper and therefore he was not a Hindu and was not competent to stand for the Reserved Seat. Instead he proceeded to demonstrate through his plea and his evidence that the returned candidate was himself converted to Christainity and failed. In this view of the matter the Supreme Court did not allow him to change his front and narrow the field of enquiry to one which he should have adopted in the first instance.
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- This appeal arises from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated August 21, 1967 by which an election petition filed by the present appellant Goka Ramalingam to question the election of the answering respondent Boddu Abraham was dismissed. The matter concerns the Cheriyal (Scheduled Caste) constituency in the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly held in February 1967. Three candidates had offered themselves for election. Two of them we have already named, the third is one Devadanam. The answering respondent obtained 15000 and odd, appellant-election petitioner 12000 and odd and Devadanam 7000 and odd votes. The election petition was based only on one issue, namely, that the respondents who had stood for a scheduled caste Reserved seat had "converted themselves into Christianity long time back and they continue to profess the said religion Christianity even today." Under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, it is provided as follows :
"(2) Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes, races or tribes of parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes, specified in Parts I to XIII of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the States to which those parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Schedule Castes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of that Schedule.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste."
It would therefore appear that if the answering respondent and Devadanam were not members of a named scheduled caste (in this case the Madiga caste) they were not eligible to stand for election for the Reserved Seat. The case as put forward in the High Court was that these two candidates had themselves got converted into Christianity a long time ago and that they did not therefore profess Hindu religion although in the plea it is stated affirmatively that they profess Christian religion. The case went to trial on this plea and the issues framed were as follows :
"1. Whether the respondents who admittedly once belonged to "Madiga" community embraced Christianity and professed the religion of Christianity at the time of election and hence respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the Assembly of the State as per Section 5 (a) read with Rule 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (C. O. 19 dated 10-8-50)?
2. Whether the nomination papers of both the respondents were improperly received and as a result thereof the result of the election has been materially affected?
3. What is the effect of admission of respondent 2 in his W. S. as to his status on this election petition?"
Evidence was led to prove that the answering respondent was converted to Christianity. This evidence was not accepted by the High Court. As regards the other respondent, he went out of the fight admitting that he was a Christian and nothing more need be said of him.
2. It appears that while this case was going on the learned Judge was informed that a Register of all converted Christians was maintained by the church. He accordingly sent for the Register and marked it as Ex. C-1. In the judgment the learned Judge gives his order: pertaining to this action. It reads as follows :
"I may mention here that since it came out in the evidence of R. W. 2 that the names of all converts to Christianity within the jurisdiction of Hanumakonda Baptist Mission would be entered in the General Record of the Field Association, Houmakonda, and that register was filed as an exhibit in a suit pending in the District Court at Warangal, I summoned it and marked it as Ex. C-1. I gave opportunity for the lawyers appearing on both sides to inspect the register and make their submissions. The entries relating to Dharmasangaram village are to be found in pages 50 to 51 a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.