1. Election petition challenging the validity of an election from a reserved constituency based on the candidate's eligibility as a member of a Scheduled Caste. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2034
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., Sujata V Manohar, J.
BENI PRASAD AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NARBADA PRASAD, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 9437 of 1995, decided on November 28, 1996.
Important Points
Eligibility to contest elections from a Scheduled Caste reserved constituency requires proving membership in a recognized caste and residency in the specified locality. Residency requirements for SC status are not restricted to those residing in the area at the time of the 1950 Presidential Notification.
Subject
Election Law - Reserved Constituencies
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 341(1) - Scheduled Caste - Election petition - Appellant filed an election petition challenging election of respondent from 208 Legislative Assembly Constituency - Respondent had contested the election on premise that he belonged to Scheduled Caste being a "Kumhar" residing in District which caste was declared a Scheduled Caste by Presidential Notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 insofar as relevant for our purposes provides that castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified in Parts I to XXII of the Schedule to this order shall, in relation to States to which these parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of that Schedule - It appears, there was an earlier petition filed by one before the High Court and therein also this very question was considered and resolved in favour of respondent - However, since petitioner in the said proceedings was a different person, present appellant contends that said decision had no binding effect so far as he is concerned – Held, High Court came to conclusion that earlier enquiry undertaken for enrolment of his name in the voters list for constituency in question had become final and could not be questioned in election petition and that when dispute was raised earlier in point of time evidence was recorded and on the basis of that evidence a decision was taken that respondent was a "Kumhar" in District - Fact that he was a "Kumhar" was not in question and as stated earlier that question was concluded in favour of respondent - If he was a "Kumhar" in area only question was whether he could get benefit of belonging to the "Kumhar" community in Shahdole area also - It was not contended that he did not specify the requirements of being recognised as a "Kumhar" in District but what was contended was that he should have been a "Kumhar" in District when the Presidential Notification was issue - That contention does not appear to be correct because in that case those who are born after the Presidential Notification would be rendered ineligible for being considered as belonging to Scheduled Castes - For above reasons court do not see any merit in this appeal and dismiss.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether eligibility as a Scheduled Caste member depends on residency in a specific district at the time the Presidential Notification was issued. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The court found the candidate proved residency and caste status, and held that voter list enrollment proceedings are final and cannot be reopened in election petitions. (Para 2 )
4. Eligibility for Scheduled Caste status is not restricted to persons born or resident in the specified locality at the time the Presidential Notification was issued. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Can the findings of an enquiry conducted for enrollment in a voters list be reopened during an election petition?
No, once an enquiry for enrollment in the voters list has been conducted and the name entered, that part of the proceedings is considered terminated and cannot be reopened in an election petition. (Para 2 )
7. Does eligibility for Scheduled Caste status require residency in a specified locality at the time the Presidential Notification was issued?
No, the court held that requiring residency at the time of the Presidential Notification would incorrectly render individuals born after the notification ineligible for Scheduled Caste status. (Para 2 )
8. What is the basis for determining eligibility to contest an election from a reserved Scheduled Caste constituency?
Eligibility is determined by establishing that the candidate is an ordinary resident of the specified district and satisfies the criteria for being recognized as a member of the specified Scheduled Caste. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent from 208 Gotegaon Legislative Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent had contested the election on the premise that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste being a "Kumhar" residing in Shahdole District which caste was declared a Scheduled Caste by the Presidential Notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 insofar as relevant for our purposes provides that the castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified in Parts I to XXII of the Schedule to this order shall, in relation to the States to which these parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of that Schedule. Part IX of the Schedule deals with the State of Madhya Pradesh. Entry at Serial No. 35 reads as "Kumhar in Chhatarpur, Datia, Panna, Reva, Satna, Shahdole, Sidhi and Tikamgarh districts". It would thus be seen that the residents of these districts who are "Kumhar" are entitled to be treated as Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this order. The appellant Beni Prasad was a candidate from 208 Gotegaon Legislative Assembly Constituency (Scheduled Castes) and he contested the election against the respondent Narbada Prasad. The latter was declared elected having secured 42,645 votes as against the appellant who secured 29,862 votes. Gotegaon Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 208 was reserved as Scheduled Caste Constituency and as such only persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes were eligible to contest the election. When the respondent filed his nomination for election from the said constituency the appellant Beni Prasad raised an objection before the Returning Officer contending that he was not a resident of Shahdole and that he was a "Kumhar" whose forefathers had settled in the adjoining area of Narsinghpur in the other district where they own moveable and immovable properties. It was contended that the respondents father Sant Ram was a permanent resident of Narsinghpur and that the respondent himself was born at Narsinghpur in 1958. The respondent contested this contention and the Returning Officer after examining the objection rejected the same and the name of the respondent was cleared for contesting the election. Prior thereto the name of the respondent was entered in the voters list for the constituency in question on the ground that he was ordinarily resident in Shahdole District; that was sometime in the year 1985. Thereafter the respondents name continued to be on the voters list and he also contested elections on the strength thereof. The question which the High Court was required to consider was whether in the circumstances mentioned above the election of the respondent could be challenged by the defeated candidate. It appears, there was an earlier petition, EP No. 9 of 1985 filed by one Umrao Singh before the High Court and therein also this very question was considered and resolved in favour of the respondent. However, since the petitioner in the said proceedings was a different person, the present appellant contends that the said decision had no binding effect so far as he is concerned. It is not necessary for us to consider whether that decision operates as res judicata so far as the present proceedings are concerned, as, in our opinion, the contention raised by the appellants in this appeal is without merit.
2. It appears from the discussion in para 19 of the impugned judgment that the question regarding the status of the respondent in Shahdole District was considered on facts by the High Court and the High Court referred to the evidence which was recorded in this behalf earlier in point of time and after considering the evidence, the High Court reached the conclusion that the
