IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Laxmi Hasda W/o Chandan Hasda – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2603 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024
(A) Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 - Sections 52 and 53 - Election eligibility - The petitioner contested elections as a member of scheduled tribe but was declared ineligible by the Divisional Commissioner based on residency and caste status post-marriage - The court upheld the decision, citing constitutional provisions regarding caste status across states. (Paras 4, 24)
(B) Caste Certificate - Migration - The court reiterated that a person retains their caste status from their state of origin and cannot claim benefits in the state of migration - The petitioner's claim was rejected based on established precedents. (Paras 12, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, originally from a scheduled tribe community, contested elections but faced challenges regarding her eligibility based on her residency and caste status after marriage. The Divisional Commissioner ruled against her, leading to this petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the Divisional Commissioner's order, affirming that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for contesting elections in Jharkhand.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of residency and caste status post-marriage and the applicability of previous judgments regarding caste certificates for migrants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that caste status is determined by the state of origin, and the petitioner could not claim benefits in Jharkhand based on her original status from another state.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa (Respondent no. 3) in Election Petition No. 04 of 2022 whereby the Divisional Commissioner has allowed the petition of respondent no. 5 in part and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible to contest the election to the post of Member-XXII West Singhbhum/04, Zila Parishad, Chakradharpur (Part-I), West Singhbhum in Panchayat Election, 2022 as a member of scheduled tribe which is reserved for scheduled tribe women. Further the prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to continue and hold the post of Member of Zila Parishad.
3. Mr. Arshad Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed her nomination as a candidate of election to the post of Member XXII West Singhbhum/04, Zila Parishad, Chakradharpur (Part-I) West Singhbhum in Panchayat Election, 2022 before the returning Officer, at West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. He further submits that other two candidates including Bhumika Munda (Respondent No. 5) have filed their nomination paper before the Returning Officer. He further submits that the nomination papers were taken up for scrutiny and acceptance of the nomination papers of all the three candidates were made. The date of filing of the nomination papers was 16.04.2022; the date of scrutiny of nomination papers was 25.04.2022 and 26.04.2022; the last date of withdrawal of candidature was 28.04.2022; the date of Poll was 14.05.2022; the date of counting of the votes was 17.05.2022 and the date of declaration of the result of the election was 17.05.2022. He submits that the votes were counted on 17.05.2022 and the petitioner namely Laxmi Hasda has secured the highest number of the votes and was declared elected.
4. He then submits that another person namely Bhumik Munda (respondent no. 5) filed Election Petition being Election Petition No. 4 of 2022 in the court of learned Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa for declaration that the election of the petitioner is void on the ground that the Member of reserved category is directly attributable to birth and a person can claim the benefit of reservation only in the State in which she is born and not to the State to which such person may migrate after marriage. He further submits that the Divisional Commissioner (Kolhan) has allowed the said petition by order dated 15.02.2024 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to contest the election being the member of scheduled tribe and in view of that it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to be declared as elected. The said order is under challenge.
5. He further submits that the petitioner before marriage she belonged to scheduled tribe community by sub-caste ‘HO’ and after marriage with Chandan Hasda who also belongs to scheduled tribe community of sub-caste ‘HO’ she was fully accepted by the society of her husband as scheduled tribe. He submits that the petitioner has not filed any forged document at the time of filing of the nomination papers before the competent authority nor she played any fraud in the said election whatsoever. He then submits that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe community by sub-caste ‘HO’ and presently resident of Village Magurda, Post Office Roladih Ppolice Station - Toklo, Block Chakradharpur, Village Panchayat, Hatnatodang, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. He further submits that Local Residential Certificate of the petitioner was issued from the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Chakradharpur District West Singhbhum vide Certificate dated 12.04.2019 which was found to be correct and genuine and the Caste Certificate dated 17.04.2019 issue
Sanjeev Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
Marri Chandra v. Dean, SGS Medical College
Ranjit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Sau Kusum Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 109
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India and Another
Caste status is determined by the state of origin, and individuals migrating to another state cannot claim benefits of reservation in the new state.
Migrants cannot claim reservation benefits in a new state based on their original state's caste status, as established by Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
Reservation benefits are strictly confined to the State for which the caste is notified, and cannot be claimed across State lines based on marriage or migration.
Point of Law : The object of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is to provide additional protection to the members of the SC/ST having regard to the social and economical backwardness fro....
Point of Law : Petitioner is married in the State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the Caste to which the petitioner belonged in the State of her origin has been declared as ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person migrating from one state to another does not carry their caste status to the migrating state, even if the same caste is recognized as....
The insistence on pre-1950 records for caste verification is contrary to established legal principles, particularly the Supreme Court's guidelines.
Reservation benefits are confined to the natives of a state, and individuals migrating from other states cannot claim such benefits based on their caste status in their home state.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.