1. Election challenge under Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Dispute over candidate's eligibility for Scheduled Caste reserved seat — Allegations of migration and religious conversion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 773
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
A. Raja – Appellant
Versus
D. Kumar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2023
Decided on : 06-05-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court clarified that election petitions challenging caste qualifications must prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and a valid caste certificate remains presumptively valid unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary.
Subject
Election Law - Caste Certification in Elections
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ACT: S.3
CITIZENSHIP ACT: S.5(1)(c), S.9(2)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.7 R.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142, Art.226, Art.243(o), Art.32, Art.341, Art.341(1)
EVIDENCE ACT: S.106, S.114
KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.153
KERALA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ACT: S.10
KERALA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES RULES: R.4
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: S.100
CITIZENSHIP ACT: S.5(1)(c), S.9(2)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.7 R.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142, Art.226, Art.243(o), Art.32, Art.341, Art.341(1)
EVIDENCE ACT: S.106, S.114
KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.153
KERALA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ACT: S.10
KERALA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES RULES: R.4
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: S.100
Headnote
(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 116-A and 100(1)(a), (d)(i) - Election challenge on grounds of caste qualification - High Court declared election of returned candidate void, alleging improper acceptance of nomination based on caste certificate - Supreme Court held that election petition dismissed, confirming candidate's eligibility based on established residency and caste classification - The burden of proof lies with the election petitioner but was not discharged in this case - The appellant's caste certificate remains valid and intact - Appeal allowed, High Court's judgment set aside. (Paras 28, 59, 60, 64)
(B) Election Petitions - Need for clear material facts and heightened burden of proof - Challenges based on the caste status must be supported by sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of disqualification - The nature of proceedings requires the election petitioner to establish assertions beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 32, 82, 84)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested elections from a scheduled caste reserved constituency alleging he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste based on a valid caste certificate issued after due process; challenge by the respondent claimed improper acceptance due to the appellant's Christian conversion.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in placing the burden of proof on the appellant and upheld the validity of the caste certificate issued under the Kerala Act, concluding that the election petition lacked the requisite proof for disqualification.
Issues: Whether the returned candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes in Kerala and if the High Court's judgment was legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of validity of the caste certificate must prevail unless the challenger provides credible evidence to invalidate it, reaffirming that allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in election petitions.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment set aside.
(B) Election Petitions - Need for clear material facts and heightened burden of proof - Challenges based on the caste status must be supported by sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of disqualification - The nature of proceedings requires the election petitioner to establish assertions beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 32, 82, 84)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested elections from a scheduled caste reserved constituency alleging he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste based on a valid caste certificate issued after due process; challenge by the respondent claimed improper acceptance due to the appellant's Christian conversion.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in placing the burden of proof on the appellant and upheld the validity of the caste certificate issued under the Kerala Act, concluding that the election petition lacked the requisite proof for disqualification.
Issues: Whether the returned candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes in Kerala and if the High Court's judgment was legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of validity of the caste certificate must prevail unless the challenger provides credible evidence to invalidate it, reaffirming that allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in election petitions.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- election law
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Krishnanunni, Sr. Adv. Mr. N Raghuraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Joice George, Adv. Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M L, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anoop R, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Adv. Mr. Harshed Sundar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Narendra Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Mr. Sheikh Mohsin, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Adv. Mr. N.leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Shelna K., Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Krishnanunni, Sr. Adv. Mr. N Raghuraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Joice George, Adv. Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M L, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anoop R, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Adv. Mr. Harshed Sundar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Narendra Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Mr. Sheikh Mohsin, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Adv. Mr. N.leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Shelna K., Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the burden of proof regarding caste status lies with the candidate or petitioner — Validity of Caste Certificate — Evidence of religious conversion to Christianity. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
3. Election petitions require proof beyond reasonable doubt — Professing a religion requires open declaration — Evidence of conversion was unreliable — Burden of proof remained with the petitioner. (Para 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 55 , 57 )
4. A Caste Certificate issued by a competent authority under state legislation cannot be challenged in an Election Petition unless specifically provided for by the state statute. (Para 40 , 45 , 64 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Election Petition dismissed — Candidate's election upheld with all consequential benefits. (Para 59 )
6. What is the standard of proof required in an election petition challenging a candidate's eligibility?
Election petitions, including those not involving corrupt practices, are treated akin to criminal proceedings. The election petitioner must prove the charges leveled against the returned candidate beyond reasonable doubt to maintain the purity of the election process. (Para 32 , 55 , 57 )
7. Can a Caste or Community Certificate issued by a competent authority be challenged within an election petition?
No, a duly issued Caste/Community Certificate is amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the specific statute governing its issuance, not in an election petition, unless the state legislation specifically provides a carve-out allowing such a challenge. (Para 40 , 45 , 64 )
8. What constitutes professing a religion for the purpose of determining Scheduled Caste status under the 1950 Order?
Professing means making an open declaration or public practice of a religion. Mere observance of certain rituals associated with another religion does not necessarily mean a person professes that religion unless the belief is made explicit. (Para 34 , 35 )
9. Does a state law placing the burden of proof on the claimant for a community certificate apply to election petitions?
No. Such provisions apply to applications, enquiries, or trials conducted under that specific state Act. They do not encompass election petitions filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (Para 40 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
This is an appeal preferred under Section 116-A1[‘116-A. Appeals to Supreme Court.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on any question (whether of law or fact) from every order made by a High Court under Section 98 or Section 99.
(2) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of the High Court under Section 98 or Section 99:
Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.’] of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’)2[2023:KER:16955 | 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1643 | (2023) 2 KLT 716 | (2023) 2 KLJ 1.] passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), in Election Petition No.11 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Election Petition’), filed by the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Election Petitioner’), declaring the election of the Appellant to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala from the Devikulam Legislative Assembly Constituency 088 in Idukki District, Kerala, which is reserved for the Scheduled Castes, as void under Section 100 (1)(a) and (d)(i) 3[‘100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion—
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or
(b) …
(c) …
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected—
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) …
the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.’] of the Act.
FACTUAL PRISM:
2. General Elections to the Devikulam Assembly Constituency for membership of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala were to be conducted in 2021. The Appellant filed his nomination papers before the Returning Officer on 17.03.2021 declaring therein that he belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste as per Caste Certificate dated 09.03.2021 issued by the Tehsildar, Devikulam. The said caste has been declared as a Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Kerala in Part VIII of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1950 Order’) issued on 10.08.1950 by Hon’ble the President of India. Oral objections before the Returning Officer were raised by the Respondent contending that the Appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Castes from Kerala and instead, he was a Christian. The Returning Officer, after examining the nomination papers of the Appellant rejected the objections and accepted the nomination papers. Polling in the Constituency took place on 06.04.2021 and after counting, the result of the election was declared on 02.05.2021. The Appellant secured 59,049 votes and was declared elected by a margin of 7848 votes over the Respondent- defeated candidate who had secured 51,201 votes.
3. The election of the Appellant was challenged by the Respondent in Election Petition No.11 of 2021 before the High Court. The ground of challenge laid therein was that the Appellant’s paternal grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kerala in 1951. They were of the ‘Hindu Parayan’ caste in the State of Tamil Nadu. ‘Parayan’ is included in the list of Scheduled Castes of both States viz. Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the 1950 Order, as originally brought into force. Since the Appellant’s grandparents on the paternal side were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and th
