The court emphasized the importance of proving the ceremony of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and clarified that the burden of proof in an election petition should not be shifted to the returned candidate.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner, opposite party No. 1 and one Kanchanlata Kandi filed their nominations for election to the post of Sarpanch of Golarhat Grama Panchayat which was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman. The opposite party No. 1 and Kanchanlata Kandi were 'BAURI' by caste and were thus Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner originally belonged to 'MANGATA JANA' caste which is not a Scheduled Caste but claims to have married to one Paramananda Kandi of village Pandit Patna who is 'BAURI' by caste. By virtue of such marriage, the petitioner claimed that she is a Scheduled Caste candidate and she accordingly filed the nomination as wife of Paramananda Kandi for the said election. The opposite party No. 1 objected to the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that she is not a Scheduled Caste and therefore could not contest the election to the post of Sarpanch of Golarhat Grama Panchayat which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman. The objection of the opposite party No. 1 was, however, rejected by the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, the candidates contested the election and the petitioner secured 963 votes while the opposite party No. 1 secured 909 votes and Kanchanlata Kandi secured 668 votes and the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Golarhat Grama Panchayat on 28.2.2002. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the opposite party No. 1 in Election Misc. Case No. 4 of 2002 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara on the ground that the petitioner did not belong to a Scheduled Caste community and therefore could not contest the election for the post of Sarpanch of Golarhat Grama Panchayat which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman.

2. In the said Election Misc. Case No. 4 of 2002 the opposite party No. 1 examined three witnesses including herself and the petitioner examined four witnesses including herself and her husband Paramananda Kandi. The petitioner also produced a marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to prove her marriage with Paramananda Kandi. In the judgment dated 12.11.2002, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara held that the marriage of the petitioner with Paramananda Kandi could not be shown to have been solemnized at Puri and that the marriage certificate (Ext. A) was obtained on 14.1.2002 just few days before the election process for the disputed election had started and that the petitioner could not prove by unquestionable and unimpeachable evidence that she has been assimilated in the family of Paramananda Kandi and that the relations and caste people of the community of Paramananda Kandi have accepted or recognized her as a member of their community and therefore the petitioner is not a Scheduled Caste woman entitled to contest as a Scheduled Caste candidate for the election to the post of Sarpanch of Golarhat Grama Panchayat which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman and accordingly declared the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch as invalid and further declared the opposite party No. 1 as duly ejected Sarpanch of Golarhat Grama Panchayat.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 12.11.2002, the petitioner preferred Election Appeal No. 14 of 2002 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack and by judgment dated 25.2.2003, the learned District Judge confirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara that the marriage of the petitioner with Paramananda Kandi at Puri in the Jagannath Temple had not been proved. The learned District Judge further held in the said judgment that the marriage certificate (Ext.A) was not a certificate u/s 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 but was a certificate u/s 16 of the said Act and that the registration of the marriage u/s 16 of the Special Marriage Act and grant of certificate thereunder was only a recognition of a past marriage and it was not a marriage done under the Act and the said marriage certif