SURAIN SINGH Vs. DR. BHAGAT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951), by Surain Singh, one of the candidates at the last General Election held in February, 1967 for the seat in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha from Faridkot Assembly Constituency (Reserve). Dr. Bhagat Singh (Respondent No. 1) was declared successful at this election as a result of the poll. The Petitioner was one of the candidates contesting, the election and so were Respondents Nos. 2 to 8. Appearance has been put in only on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and trial of the petition proceeded ex parte against the others. The principal ground on which the election was challenged is that appearing in paragraph 3(i) of the petition. This was that Respondent No. 1 had in his nomination papers described his caste as Ramdasi, which was a misstatement. He belonged to Sikh religion and as such could not be Ramdasi. This objection was based on the fact that this was a reserved seat for members of "Scheduled Castes". the reservation having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify by public notification the castes, races or tribes or parts of groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State. The order promulgated in this connection is the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. (CO. 19 of the 10th August. 1950), as amended hereinafter to be referred to as the Order. So far as Punjab is concerned, -vide Part X of the Schedule to the Order item No. 9, which is the relevant item, is as follows:

(2.) IT was submitted in the petition that Ramdasi or Ravidasi worship Guru Ravi Dass and are a separate sect of Chamars. Ramdasia was a different sect and they worshipped Guru Ram Dass, the fourth Guru of the Sikhs. Respondent No. 1 might not belong to Ramdasia caste, but according to the Petitioner, he did not belong to Ramdasi sect. It was further averred that Ramdasis or Ravidasis could not be Sikhs. So Respondent No. 1 could not legally stand for the election and the acceptance of the nomination papers was illegal which had materially affected the result of the election.

(3.) THESE were the only objections on which ultimately issues were claimed. The objections were controverted in the written statement furnished on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and it was maintained that the caste Ramdasi or Ravidasi, Ramdasia or Ravidasia are one and the same and it was false to claim that a Sikh could not be a Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Ramdasia or Ravidasia. The terms were synonymous and the difference was one of pronunciation only. It was also untrue to say that in Sikhs Ramdasias was a different sect, who worship Guru Ram Dass. the fourth Guru alone.