A person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste and is therefore ineligible to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for members of Scheduled Castes.

MUDHOLKAR J. -The question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court is whether respondent No.1 Dr. D. P. Meshram was entitled to be a candidate for election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from constituency No. 190 of Nagpur III, a constituency reserved for candidates from Scheduled Castes.

2. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 were candidates duly nominated for election to the Assembly from the aforesaid constitution. The poll was taken on February 27, 1962 and respondent No.1 who had polled the highest number of votes was declared elected. The appellant thereupon preferred an election petition before the Election Commission, the main allegations in which were (a) that respondent No.1 having embraced Buddhism on March 17, 1957 had ceased to be a. member of a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and was thus disentitled from being a candidate for the particular seat and (b) that respondent No~ 1 was guilt~ of several corrupt practices. The Tribunal held that the corrupt practices alleged against respondent No.1 were not established. It, however, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had embraced Buddhism as alleged by the appellant and was, therefore, not eligible for being a candidate for election from the reserved constituency. Upon this ground the Tribunal set aside the election of respondent No.1. It may be mentioned that the appellant had made a further prayer to the effect that he should be declared elected to the seat; but this prayer was not granted by the Tribunal on the ground that he was not the only other candidate for election and, therefore, it cannot be said how the votes which respondent No, 1 had secured would have been distributed among the remaining candidates. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal respondent No. I preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay. The only question which was urged before the High Court was regarding the alleged conversion of respondent No.1 to Buddhism. On that question the High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal and held that the foot had not been established by evidence.• The High Court therefore, upheld the election of respondent No. ].

3. In support of his contention that respondent No.1 was converted to Buddhism on March 17, 1957 the appellant had adduced evidence of P. W. 9 Ramratat1 Janorkar, P. W. 2 Akant Mate, P. W. 5 Devaji Bhagat and P. W. 10 Wasudeo Dongre. Ramratan who claims to be a Bnddha has said that he presided over a meeting held at Lashkari Bagh, Nagpur, two or three days after the Holi festival of the year 1957 at which a mass conversion of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes to Buddhism took place. He named ten persons who, according to him, had been converted at that meeting, one of them being respondent No. 1. Amongst others named by him were P. W. 2 Akant Mate, P. W. 5 Devaji Bhagat and P. W. 10 Wasudeo Dongre. These three persons have corroborated the evidence of Ramratan. We have been taken through the evidence of these witnesses and though there may be some contradiction on minor points on the whole their evidence is consistent and has a ring of truth in it. Moreover, the Tribunal which heard and saw the witnesses depose has believed in their veracity. The High Court has, however, not chosen to accept their evidence mainly on the ground that these witnesses belong to a party which is opposed to respondent No.1 and his party. It is not disputed before us that these witnesses as well as respondent No.1 were members of the Republican Party of India founded by the late Dr. Ambedkar, and that some time after his death there was rift in the party as a result of which two groups were formed. The leader of one of these groups is Haridas Awade and that of the other is Khobargade. Respondent No. 1 belongs to the group headed by Khobargade while the appellant and the witnesses belong to the other

grou