Back
Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, R.S.SARKARIA, P.N.BHAGWATI
C. M. Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
S. Rajgopal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
BHAGWATI, J.:— This appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is directed against an order made by the High Court of Mysore setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination paper of the 1st respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. This litigation does not stand in isolation. It has a history and that is necessary to be noticed in order to 941 appreciate the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of both parties in the appeal.
2. The appellant and the 1st respondent have been opponents in the electoral battle since a long time. The constituency from which they have been standing as candidates is 68 KGF Constituency for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly. They opposed each other as candidates from this constituency in 1967 General Election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly. Now, the seat from this constituency was a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes and, therefore, only members of Scheduled castes could stand as candidates from this constituency. The expression "Scheduled Castes" has a technical meaning given to it by Cl. (24) of Article 366 of the Constitution and it means "such cast
No cases in the provided list were explicitly identified as "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," or "bad law." Most entries discuss *C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal (1976) 1 SCC 863* as a valid precedent that is consistently cited, followed, and discussed in subsequent case law.
**Followed / Applied / Referred**
* **KHAZAN SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - 1979 0 Supreme(Del) 187 & ASHOK KUMAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1998 0 Supreme(All) 937:** These entries contain principles regarding the caste status of adoptees. They are consistent with the general theme of *Arumugam* regarding community acceptance and status.
* **Shantabai and another VS State of Maharashtra - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 209, Milind Son of Shardrao Katware alongwith intervenors VS State of Maharashtra alongwith intervenors - 1985 0 Supreme(Bom) 231, Ranjana Babasaheb Sature VS State of Maharashtra & others - 2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 1250, State of Kerala VS Chandramohanan - 2004 1 Supreme 1082, State Of Kerala VS Chandramohanan - 2004 1 Supreme 1082, STATE OF KERALA VS CHANDRAMOHANAN - 2004 0 Supreme(HP) 18, Ramesh Chennamaneni VS Aadi Sreenivas - 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 635, M. Chandra VS M. Thangamuthu - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 817, K. Vasikaran VS District Level Vigilance Committee, rep. by the District Collector - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3712, Dipak VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2609, K. P. Manu VS Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate - 2015 8 Supreme 705, Chinni Appa Rao VS State of A. P. - 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 833, V. Anbazhagan - VS A. Laser - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 1404, RAMESH SINGH VS SONIA GANDHI - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 783, Monisha Kumari VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 1353, N Munianjappa S/o H. Narayanappa VS G Manjunatha, S/o Late Govindu - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 734, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. VS Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola - 2019 5 Supreme 537, ANU.S.P. vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 87844, Anu. S. P. VS State Of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1132, Chinthada Anand VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2026 3 Supreme 514:** These refer to *Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal (1976) 1 SCC 863*. They utilize the case to establish legal standards for election challenges, caste identity, and the impact of conversion/reconversion. The phrasing "this Court held" or "the Supreme Court has considered" indicates these are being followed as binding precedent.
* **M. Ramasankar VS District Level Vigilance Committee, Tirunelveli District - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 2936:** Establishes the legal point of the revival of original caste identity, which aligns with the principles frequently cited from the *Arumugam* line of cases.
* **P.RAJAN Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17836:** Discusses the requirement of corroborative evidence for a Scheduled Caste claim, referencing the necessity of community acknowledgment explored in the *Arumugam* precedent.
**Contextual / Citational (General References)**
* **Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur VS Y. Mohan Rao - 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 163, S. Anbalagan VS B. Devarajan - 1983 0 Supreme(SC) 402, Kailash Sonkar VS Maya Devi - 1983 0 Supreme(SC) 420, Valsamma Paul: Kerala Public Service Commission VS Cochin University: Kanjamma Alex - 1996 0 Supreme(SC) 25, Goolrokh M. Gupta Maiden Name Goolrokha VS Burjor Pardiwala President - 2012 0 Supreme(Guj) 170, State of Odisha VS Prasanta Kumar Nayak - 2024 0 Supreme(Ori) 8, Durai Arivudainambi, S/o. Durairaj, Mudaliyarpet, Pondicherry VS The Election Commissioner of India represented by the Chief Elections Commissioner, New Delhi and others - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 809:** These entries provide minimal context but consistently cite *Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal* as a foundational case for litigation history or legal identity.
* **NARA RAGHAVA RAO VS NADIABASI BISWAS - 1986 0 Supreme(Ori) 51, Arumugam alias Asirvatham VS State by Inspector of Police Senthamaram P. S. and others - 2004 0 Supreme(Mad) 679, S. Yasmine VS Secretary, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1964, Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd. VS Competition Commission Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 368, Meera Kanwaria VS Sunita - 2006 1 Supreme 166, Meera Kanwaria VS Sunita - 2005 0 Supreme(Ori) 768:** Reference *Arumugam* alongside other cases (like *Mohan Rao* or *Kailash Sonkar*) to discuss evolving jurisprudence on religion and caste.
* **SUNITA VS KRISHAN LAL, LATE SHRI DES RAJ, MEERA KANWARIA, SAVITA, SHAKUNTLA ARYA, SUSHMA - 2004 0 Supreme(Del) 1098, Kodikunnil Suresh @ J. Monian VS N. S. Saji Kumar, Etc. Etc. - 2011 4 Supreme 19, SOUMYA.C Vs STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - 2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1939, Punit Rai VS Dinesh Chaudhary - 2003 0 Supreme(MP) 927, State Of Kerala VS CHANDRAMOHANAN - 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 108:** These cite the case to support arguments or provide historical context for legal debates regarding caste and conversion.
**Unrelated / Statutory Principles**
* **SUSHIL KUMAR DUTTA VS STATE - 1985 0 Supreme(Cal) 269:** Burden of proof in criminal prosecution (General principle of law).
* **RUNGTA SONS PRIVATE LTD. VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1996 0 Supreme(Ori) 351:** Principles regarding Octroi levies (General principle of municipal law).
* **("Rajgopal and."):** The snippet is insufficient to determine context or treatment.
* **("Arumugam vs. S. Rajgopal ... Cosmmic Dye Chemical vs."):** It is unclear if there is a conflict or simply a joint citation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
