Important point
When a person claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, burden of proof that he or she belongs to such caste or tribe is on him/her.

Headnote:Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulations of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996—Sections 8, 9 and 10—Election for office of President of Gram Panchayat reserved for a member belonging to Scheduled Caste—Appellant claiming to be belonging to Hindu Pulayan Community, Scheduled Caste contested for the seat against respondent 3 and got herself elected as President of Gram Panchayat—Complaint filed by respondent alleging that appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste—Scrutiny Committee on basis of evidence reached the conclusion that appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste—According to the Committee, appellant was born to Christian parents and she had never been converted to Hinduism nor professed Hinduism—She was not accepted as a member of Hindu Pulayan, Scheduled Caste Community—Appeal filed against the decision by the Scrutiny Committee rejecting claim of appellant—Whether High Court was justified in negativing claim of appellant—(Yes)—Finding recorded by Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be assailed in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution—Constitution of India—Article 136.
       Held : The Caste Scrutiny Committee considered the case of the appellant and her assertion that she belonged to Hindu Pulayan Community - Scheduled Caste and on the basis of report of the Expert Agency and considering the relevant record rightly negatived such claim. A finding of fact has been recorded that the appellant was born and brought up as a Christian and she continued to remain as Christian. She was never accepted by Hindu Pulayan Community - Scheduled Caste as a member of the Community. She never followed Hinduism nor lived in Hindu Milieu. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 is well founded that such a finding cannot be assailed in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the finding is based on ‘no evidence’ or is arbitrary or perverse. To us, the provisions of the Act are clear and unambiguous. They provide procedure for an enquiry by Expert Agency and the report by such agency is ‘conclusive’ proof by or against the person reported upon. Section 10 casts burden of proof on the person claiming the status of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. (Paras 19 and 20)
       In the instant case, it is the appellant who claimed to belong to Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding of fact recorded against her that she was born and brought up as Christian, the caste certificate was ordered to be cancelled. In view of the said finding, it is immaterial that she had obtained a certificate showing her caste to be Hindu Pulayan - Scheduled Caste. If her case was that she was re-converted in Hinduism, it was for her to put forward such claim and to prove it in accordance with law. In our opinion, Section 10 is clear and expressly enacts that when a person claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, burden of proof that he or she belongs to such caste or tribe is on him/her. Since the appellant was born as a Christian and continued to remain as Christian, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee canceling the appellant’s certificate and confirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be illegal and no interference is called for. (Para 21)
       We are prima facie of the view that learned counsel for the respondents are right in submitting that the issue was whether the appellant belonged to Hindu Pulayan Community, Scheduled Tribe? Once it is held that she did not belong to Scheduled Tribe, the action of cancellation of certificate could not be held illegal. Consequential actions can be taken thereafter in pursuance of cancellation of caste certificate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, it is not necessary to deal with the contention sought to be raised by the appellant since it was never raised earlier. The application, accordingly, stands disposed of without expressing final opinion on applicability or otherwise of Article 243-O of the Constitution or Section 153(14) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Since, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and confirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be contrary to law or based on ‘no evidence’ or otherwise objectionable, the grievance of the appellant is ill-founded and no relief can be granted to her. (Paras 26 to 28)

(Concurring Judgment)

S.B. Sinha, J.—Although, I respectfully agree with the judgment and order proposed to be pronounced by Brother, Thakker, J., I would like to add a few words.

2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in view of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India occupy a special position. Protective discrimination and affirmative action for the downtrodden people are envisaged in our constitutional scheme despite the fact that the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is of great significance. [See E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 394]

3. When, thus, a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes obtains a false certificate with a view to gain undue advantage to which he or she was not otherwise entitled to would amount to commission of fraud. Fraudulent acts are not encouraged by the courts. A person for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the Presidential Order must fulfil the condition of being a member of Scheduled Castes and continue to be so. Conversion of a member of Scheduled Castes to a different religion may not, in certain circumstances, deprive him of the said benefits although there appears to be some divergence of views in this regard. [See State of Kerala and another Vs. Chandramohanan (2004) 3 SCC 429 and Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 244]. In this case, however, even the said question does not arise.

4. In Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 319], this Court held:

“15....Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.”

It was further held:

“18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.

23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous.

24. In Arlidge & Parry on Fraud, it is stated at p. 21:

“Indeed, the word sometimes appears to be virtually synonymous with `deception’, as in the offence (now repealed) of obtaining credit by fraud. It is true that in this context `fraud’ included certain kinds of conduct which did not amount to false pretences, since the definition referred to an obtaining of credit `under false pretences, or by means of any other fraud’. In Jones, for example, a man who ordered a meal without pointing out that he had no money was held to be guilty of obtaining credit by fraud but not of obtaining the meal by false pretences: his conduct, though fraudulent, did not amount to a false pretence. Similarly, it has been suggested that a charge of conspiracy to defraud may be used where a `false front’ has been presented to the public (e.g. a business appears to be reputable and creditworthy when in fact it is neither) but there has been nothing so concrete as a false pretence. However, the concept of deception (as defined in the Theft Act, 1968) is broader than that of a false pretence in that (inter alia) it includes a misrepresentation as to the defendant’s intentions; both Jones and the `false front’ could now be treated as cases of obtaining property by deception.”

25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1331

Important pointWhen a person claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, burden of proof that he or she belongs to such caste or tribe is on him/her.

Cases Referred (11)

Important point
When a person claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, burden of proof that he or she belongs to such caste or tribe is on him/her.