The judgment establishes the importance of proving allegations of corrupt practices and eligibility criteria for contesting elections, emphasizing the need for evidence to support such claims.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the Act), has been filed by Naunihalsingh, an elector, whose petition challenging the election of Kishorilal Paliwal, respondent 1, and Nabha, respondent 2, to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Gadarwara Double Member Constituency, for the general and reserved seat respectively, was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Hoshangabad. The returned candidates have filed a cross-objection for costs.

( 2 ) KISHORILAL Paliwal and Nabha, respondents 1 and 2, were set up as candidates for the election by the Congress party for the general and reserved seat respectively of the Gadarwara Double Member Constituency. Niranjansingh, respondent 3, and Gokul, respondent 4, were likewise set up for election to the general and reserved seat respectively, by the Praja Socialist Party, Ramgulam, respondent 5, and Ramchand Paliwal, respondent 6, were independent candidates for the general seat. They secured the following number of votes: 1. Kishorilal Paliwal. . . 19327. 2. Nabha. . . . 21885. 3. Niranjansingh. 4. Gokul. . . . 13632. . . . 13496. 5. Ramgulam. 6. Ramchand Paliwal. . . . 3684. . . . 1044. Accordingly, Kishorilal Paliwal, respondent 1, was declared as elected for the general seat and Nabha respondent 2, for the reserved seat. ( 3 ) THE contesting candidates who were not elected, viz. , respondents 3 to 6, were ordered by the Election Tribunal to be struck off the record as they were not necessary parties. However, they were joined in the appeal as respondents as they were shown as parties in the title of the order of the Election Tribunal. Out of them, respondents 4 to 6 were served but remained absent, and respondent 2, Niranjansingh, was ordered to be struck off the record as he could not be served.

( 4 ) NAUNIHALSINGH, a voter in the Gadarwara constituency, challenged the election of the returned candidates on various allegations of corrupt practice. Against Nabha, respondent 2, his further case was that he was not a member of a scheduled caste and, therefore, could not contest the election for the reserved seat. All these points were controverted by the returned candidates, who also challenged the right of Naunihalsingh to file the election petition on the ground that he had not initially stated his number on the electoral roll and although he was allowed to state the number by the Election Tribunal, the amendment was unauthorised and did not invest him with a right to prosecute the election petition. This contention was disallowed by the election Tribunal. Before us, his right to maintain the election was not challenged.

( 5 ) THE points that were urged before us are discussed below: (1) Scheduled Caste: Nabha, respondent 2, is admittedly a Chamar. In the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as initially issued on 10th August 1950, Chamar, throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh, was notified as a scheduled caste in Part IV of the Schedule. This Order and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, which were issued by the President under Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution, were modified by him under Section 41 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, by the Scheduled Castes and Tribes List (Modification) Order, 1956. In this Modification Order, any reference to a State or to a district or other territorial division, has to be construed as a reference to the State, district or other territorial division constituted as from 1st November, 1956. Chamar was mentioned in the Modification Order as a scheduled caste in the district of Hoshangabad in Clause (2) of Part VI of the First Schedule. On 1st November 1956, Narsimhapur, where Nabha, respondent 2, resides, was constituted into a separate district. It was accordingly contended that since the Hoshangabad district did not, on that date, include the territory comprised in the district of Narsimhapur, Nabha, respondent 2, could not be