C M ARUMUGAM Vs. S RAJGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 castes, reces or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes or tribes as are deemed under Art. 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purpose of the Constitution". The President, in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Art. 341 issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order are material and, since the amendment made by Central Act 63 of 1956, they are in the following terms:

(3.) The appellant thereupon filed election petition No. 4 of 1967 in the Mysore High Court challenging the election of the 1st respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent was not an Adi Dravida professing Hindu religion at the date when he filed his nomination and was, therefore, not qualified to stand as a candidate for the reserved seat from 68 KGF Constituency. The Mysore High Court, by an order dated 30th August, 1967, held that the 1st respondent was converted to Christianity in 1949 and on such conversion, he ceased to be an Adi Dravida and, therefore, at the material date, he could not be said to be a member of a Scheduled Caste, nor did he profess Hindu religion, and he was consequently not eligible for being chosen as a candidate for election from a reserved constituency. The 1st respondent being aggrieved by the order setting aside his election, preferred C. A. No. 1553 of 1967 to this Court under Sec. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This Court addressed itself to four questions, namely, first, whether the 1st respondent had become a convert to Christianity in 1949; secondly, whether, on such conversion, he ceased to be a member of Adi Dravida caste; thirdly, whether he had reverted to Hinduism and started professing Hindu religion at the date of filing his nomination, and lastly, whether on again professing the Hindu religion, he once again became a member of Adi Dravida caste. So far as the first question was concerned, this Court, on consideration of the evidence, held that the 1st respondent was converted to Christianity in 1949 and in regard to the second question, this Court observed that it must be held that when the 1st respondent embraced Christianity in 1949, he ceased to belong to Adi Dravida caste. This Court then proceeded to consider the third question and held that having regard to the seven circumstances enumerated in the judgment, it was clear that at the relevant time in 1967, that is, in January-February 1967, the 1st respondent was professing Hindu religion. That led to a consideration of the last question as to the effect of reconversion of the 1st respondent to Hinduism. This Court referred to a number of decisions of various High Courts which laid down the principle that "on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can become a member of the same caste in which he was born and to which he belonged before having been converted to another religion', and pointed out that the main basis on which these decisions proceeded was that "if the members of the caste accept the reconversion of a person as a member, it should be held that he does become a member of that caste, even though he may have lost membership of that caste on conversion to another religion". This Court, however, did not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the correctness of these decisions, as it found that even if the principle enunciated in these decisions was valid, the 1st respondent did not give evidence to satisfy the requirements laid down by this principle and "failed to establish that he became a member of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste after he started professing the Hindu religion". This Court observed that "whether the membership of a caste can be acquired by conversion to Hinduism or after reconversion to Hinduism is a question on which we have refrained from expressing our opinion because on the assumption that it can be acquired, we have arrived at the conclusion that the appellant", that is, the 1st respondent in the present case, "must fail in this appeal". This Court accordingly upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. S. Rajagopal v. C. M. Arumugam, (1969) 1 SCR 254 = (AIR 1969 SC 101).