Kishorilal Hans vs Raja Ram Singh Anb And Vice

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(SC) 636

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Kishorilal Hans (in C. A. No. 2123 of 1969) and Raja Ram Singh (In C. A. No. No. 2237 of 1969, Appellants
Versus
Raja Ram Singh and others, (In C. A. No. 2123 / 1969) and Kishroilal Hans and others, (In C. A. No. 2237 of 1969), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2123 and 2237 of 1969, D/- 30-11-1971.
condition precedent for contesting election to a constituency reserved for scheduled caste
Advocates appeared
Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. for Appellant (In C. A. No. 2123 of 1969) and for Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 2237 of 1969); Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. G. L. Sanghi and K. P. Gupta, Advocates, with him) for Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 2123 of 1969) and the Appellant (in C. A No. 2237 of 1969).

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, G.L.SANGHI, K.P.GUPTA, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY

Headnote:Constitution of India - Art. 341 - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956 - Item 3 - 'Jatav' not a scheduled caste in the district where the returned candidate resided - filing nomination and returning electedfl0m a district where Jatav declared a scheduled caste - nomination void - President has power to declare a Caste Scheduled for a part only of a State - evidence as to one caste being included in another - not permissible.
       According to the Presidential Order Jatav was not one of the castes mentioned in it so far as Datia district of the Madhya Pradesh State was concerned in which the returned candidate was enrolled as an elector. In the area comprising the Bhander constituency from where the returned candidate stood for election Jatav was one of the castes which was included in the aforesaid Order. But it is not claimed, and rightly so, that fact could be of any avail, to the returned candidate. If he was a Jatav by caste and if that caste did not find any mention in the Presidential Order in the Datia district the returned candidate could not be regarded as having the qualifications for offering himself for election in a constituency reserved for a member of the scheduled caste. [Para 5
       From the entire evidence to which it is unnecessary to refer there seems, to be little room for doubt that although at one time Jatavs might have been Chamars but they became a distinct caste or came to be recognised as a separate caste several years ago. The fact that they were shown separately as a caste in the Madhya Bharat and several other States in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 1956 shows that the existence of Jatav caste was recognised. A caste, it is well known, cannot spring up or develop in a short period of time. It is unnecessary to go into the question of the origin of a caste but it cannot be gainsaid that a caste must be in existence before it can be recognised as such. The fact of recognition of Jatav caste as a caste in the statutory provisions and Orders mentioned before though confined to certain States and parts of those States can nut be ignored. It cannot, therefore, be said that Jatav and Chamar was one and the same. [Para 11
       While issuing Presidential Orders under Article 341, the scheme was to specify scheduled castes throughout a particular State or the Union Territory as well as parts of that State or the Union Territory, as the case may be, in relation to the locality in which the members of those castes etc., were residing. This test of residence leads to highly anomalous and unjust results. But under Article 341, the President is authorised to limit the notification to parts of a State. (1965) 2 SCR 87; followed. [Paras 12 & 13
       Generally speaking it is not open to any person to lead evidence to establish that his caste includes or is the same as another caste which is notified in the Order. (1965) 1 SCR 316 followed. [Para 14

Judgment

GROVER, J. :- These are two cross appeals from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. We shall give the facts of C. A. No. 2123/69 which arises from an election petition filed by the respondent Rajaram Singh an unsuccessful candidate in the High Court under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, hereinafter called the Act challenging the election of the appellant who was declared duly elected in February 1967 from the Bhander Asembly Constituency of the State of Madhya Pradesh a seat which was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate.

2. The last date for filing the nomination papers was January 20, 1967, the date of scrutiny was January 21, 1967. The poll took place on February 20, 1967. The result of the election was declared on February 21, 1967.The appellant obtained 24,549 votes whereas respondent No. 1 obtained 8096 votes. A number of allegations were raised in the election petition and as many as 12 issues were framed with a number of sub-issues. On all the issues the allegations of respondent No. 1 were negatived with the exception of issue No. 1. That issue was as follows.

(1) (a) Whether respondent No. 1 Shri Kishroilal belongs to the Jatav caste as alleged by the petitioner.

(b) Whether, therefore, respondent No. 1 does not belong to the scheduled caste and, therefore, does not possess the necessary qualifications of a scheduled caste candidate for the Bhander Assembly Constituency in question which is a reserved seat for scheduled caste candidate only, as alleged by the petitioner?

(d) Assuming that Jatav is a separate caste then whether Jatav is recorded as scheduled caste for the purpose of Bhander Assembly Constituency in question as alleged by respondent No. 1?

(e) Whether, therefore, on this ground he was entitled to contest the election as a scheduled caste candidate from the Bhander Assembly Constituency, although he is a permanent resident of village Bargavan within the Seondha Assembly Constituency in which he is recorded as a voter as alleged by him?

The High Court found sub-issue (a) in the affirmative and held that the appellant belonged to the Jatav caste. On sub-issue (b) it was held that the appellant did not possess the necessary qualifications and was, therefore, unqualified to fill the seat in question. On sub-issue (c) the court was of the opinion that no inquiry could be made into the question whether the Jatav caste is one of the sub-castes of Chamar. Sub-issue (d) was answered in the affirmative and (e) in the negative.

3. The only question which now survives for consideration is whether the High Court was right in holding that the appellant was not a member of the scheduled caste and was, therefore, disqualified to stand for a seat reserved for a scheduled caste. We may refer to the pleadings of the parties on the point. In the election petition it was alleged in para 6 that the name of the appellant before us, who will hereafter be referred to as the "returned candidate" was not entered in the electoral roll for legislative assembly constituency no. 2 Secondha, district Datia in part No. 81, village Bargawan on serial No. 154. He was a permanent resident of that village within the aforesaid assembly Constituency. The returned candidate belonged to the Jatav caste which was not a scheduled caste declared for the purpose of election for Datia district. He had fraudulently concealed his jatav caste and representing himself to be a Chamar he had stood as a candidate for the Bhander Assembly Constituency. Under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order 1956 the President of India had declared in respect of District Datia the various castes which were to be recognised as scheduled caste. Item 3 thereof was as follows:

"Chamar, Ahirwar, Chamar Mangam, Mochi or Riadas". It was asserted that Jatav caste h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(SC) 636

Cases Referred (2)