Important point
A person who is a high caste Hindu and not subjected to any social or educational or backwardness in his life; by reason of marriage alone cannot ipso facto become a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In absence of any strict proof he cannot be allowed to defeat the very provisions made by the State for reserving certain seats for disadvantaged people.

Headnote:Election Law—Representation of the People Act, 1951—Section 116-C—Election for Municipal Councilor—A seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman in Subhash Nagar Ward of Municipal Corporation of Delhi—Respondent, Rajput by caste, having married a member of Scheduled Caste was declared elected—Election petition challenging respondent’s election—Allegations that respondent having been born in an upper caste family, she could not have been considered to be belonging to Scheduled Caste by reason of her marriage only—An enquiry was made upon receiving a complaint that the said certificate contained a wrong declaration—Certificate granted in favour of respondent was cancelled as she was daughter of one ‘CS’ and not of ‘R’ as stated—Whether High Court was justified in upholding respondent’s election—(No).
       Held : It is not disputed that the marriage took place as per Vedic Hindu Rites. The marriage was attended by her father-in-law, husband and three more relatives, who stated that they had accepted the marriage with her Jatav husband and they had attended that wedding. The term "Biradari" has also been explained by the First Respondent stating that the same denotes elders of her husband’s family. It is one thing to say that a lady belonging to a forward caste has been accepted by the community to which her husband belongs; but it is another thing to say that her marriage has been accepted only by her husband’s family. The question as regard change of caste in view of her marriage although may be relevant in relation to Hindus, but when the question of change of caste is referable to the category belonging to a special class of citizens who require protective discrimination and affirmative action, a different rule will apply. The burden of proof therefor indisputably would be on the person who affirms the same. (Para 19)
       It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or dispute that a person who is a high caste Hindu and not subjected to any social or educational or backwardness in his life; by reason of marriage alone cannot ipso facto become a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In absence of any strict proof he cannot be allowed to defeat the very provisions made by the State for reversing certain seats for disadvantaged people. The High Court may or may not be right in holding that no special ceremony was required for conversion from upper caste to Jatav, but the finding of fact arrived at by the learned District Judge that her marriage had taken place as per Vedic Hindu Rites and her marriage has been accepted by her Biradari meaning thereby elders of her husband’s family only cannot be held to be the same as that she had been accepted by the community of her husband. (Paras 25 and 26)
       The High Court, thus, committed a manifest error in coming to the conclusion that the purposes of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, on the one hand, and Articles 330 and 332, on the other, are different. (Para 31)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

Background fact :

2. The First Respondent herein was Rajput by caste. She married one Ghanshyam on 09.12.2000, who was a member of Scheduled Caste. The marriage was performed as per Vedic Hindu Rites. She applied for and granted a certificate of being belonging to Scheduled Caste by birth by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, describing her as a daughter of Ramaye, who in fact was her husband’s elder brother’s father-in-law.

3. An inquiry was caused to be made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate upon receiving a complaint that the said certificate contained wrong declaration as she was daughter of one Chinna Singh and not of Ramaye. The said allegations were found to be correct. It was also found that the First Respondent’s Jethani’s name was also co-incidentally Sunita. On the said premise, the certificate granted in her favour was cancelled by an order dated 10.07.2002 and a criminal case under Sections 406, 420, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The said criminal case is still pending.

Election Proceedings :

4. The First Respondent herein contested an election for the Municipal Councilor from Ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar Ward of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assembly Constituency No. 13, a seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman. She was declared elected. The Appellant herein was also a candidate. Whereas the First Respondent got 14,757 votes, the Appellant herein got 13,755 votes.

5. One Krishan Lal filed an election petition before the District Judge, Delhi in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, wherein, inter alia a prayer was made to the effect that the Appellant herein be declared elected. The contention of the election petitioner in the said proceedings was that as the First Respondent herein was born in an upper caste family, she could not have been considered to be belonging to Scheduled Caste by reason of her marriage only. The Appellant indisputably was arrayed as Respondent No. 2. In the said proceedings, the learned judge, inter alia, framed the following issues :

"4. Whether the respondent No. 1 belongs to a scheduled caste category?

5. Whether the respondent No. 1 acquired the status of scheduled caste by virtue of her marriage with a Jatav notified as scheduled caste category for the purpose of her eligibility to contest municipal election in Delhi?

6. Whether the election of respondent No. 1 as a municipal councilor from Ward No. 20 is liable to be declared void on facts mentioned to the petition?

7. If issue No. 6 is decided in affirmative whether respondent No. 2 is entitled to be declared elected from Ward No. 20 as municipal councilor?"

6. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were taken up for consideration together. Relying, inter alia, upon a decision of this Court in Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others [AIR 1996 SC 1011], the learned Judge opined :

"25. In view of the above testimony of respondent No. 1 in her cross-examination, no manner of doubt is left in my mind except to hold that respondent No. 1 has manipulated a scheduled caste certificate by hoodwinking the legal process. By no means she can be said to have acquired the status of scheduled caste merely because of her marriage with scheduled caste person. Hence, both these issues are decided against respondent No.1"

7. Having regard to the aforementioned findings, the election of the First Respondent herein was held to be void and of no effect and was consequently set aside. Issue No. 7 was, however, not pressed.

High Court Proceedings :

8. A writ petition was filed there-against by the First Respondent before the Delhi High Court. The High Court in its judgment noticed several decisions of this Court and opined that as the First Respondent was accepted by her husband’s family and biradari, the judgment of the learned District Judge was unsustainable. The High Court distinguished Valsamma Paul (supra) on the premise that ‘principle of reserv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2005 Supreme(SC) 1576

Cases Referred (12)

Judicial Analysis