KUMAR Vs. RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pertaining to the election to the Legislative Constituency - Devikulam 088 in Idukki District in the year 2021 (6/4/2021), the petitioner came up challenging the election of returned candidate, the respondent, on the reason that the said constituency is reserved for Scheduled Caste among Hindus and the returned candidate is not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste among Hindus within the State of Kerala, hence violated the provision - Sec. 5 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The returned candidate Sri.A.Raja, S/o Antony is a Christian and not a member of Scheduled Caste. The objection raised by the petitioner before the Returning Officer against the acceptance of nomination was rejected without assigning any valid reason. After the election, the returned candidate was declared elected by a margin of 7848 votes.

(2.) It is alleged that the respondent is not a member of 'Hindu Parayan' within the State of Kerala. The grandparents of respondent on the paternal side are Pushpam and Lakshmanan, who were residents of Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, who migrated to Kerala in 1951 (the present district Idukki). It is further submitted that Hindu Parayan is a scheduled caste in relation to the State of Tamil Nadu in Part XVI of the Schedule to the Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order, 1950. Hence, they cannot claim to be a member of Scheduled Caste Hindu Parayan in Part VIII of Order 1950 in relation to State of Kerala. The descendants of Pushpam and Lakshmanan also cannot claim to be a member of Hindu Parayan in Part VIII of Schedule to the Order, 1950. The respondent is the son of Antony and Esther, born on 17/10/1984. Antony and Esther are Christians baptised by the CSI Church in 1992 in Kundala Estate by Pastor Ebanezer Mani. Esther died on 13/10/2016 and was buried at CSI Church in Kundala estate. The very same Pastor Ebanezer Mani baptized the respondent herein and is a member of CSI Church, Kundala Division. The respondent married Shiny Priya in accordance with Christian religious rites in the presence of Ebanezer Mani. She is also a member of CSI Church. The caste certificate filed along with the nomination issued by Tahsildar, Devikulam depicting the respondent as Hindu Parayan is not correct. Hence the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void under Sec. 100(1)(a) and 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

(3.) The returned candidate, the respondent, in turn submitted his written statement raising the following contentions: