Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. First respondent contended that when election is not challenged on the ground that there was improper acceptance of the nomination paper, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the election based on sub section (2) of Section 33 of Representation of the People Act, especially when there is no pleading based on Section 33(2) of Representation of the People Act. It is also argued that evidence of petitioner as PW1 establish that he has no personal knowledge on the allegations raised or the correctness of the allegations made and eventhough it is contended that the parents of the first respondent are converted christians, the defence that mother of the first respondent belongs to Pulaya caste and is not a christian or converted christian was not challenged and though the father of the first respondent was born to a converted christian, he was living as a Hindu suffering all the inequalities and disqualifications and first  respondent being the son of a Pulaya mother was brought up as a Hindu Pulaya and there is no contra evidence. It is also contended that the allegations in the petition that the school registers show that first respondent is a christian is falsified by the admission registers and it shows that the election petition is filed without any bona fides and out of political spite. It is also contended that Pulaya, Pulayan, Cheramar and Pulayar are all one and the same caste and the synonyms castes are included in Entry No.54 and originally only Pulayan and Cheramar were included and entry 54 of Part VII of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order was amended subsequently by the Parliament under Act 61 of 2002. In addition to Pulayan and Cheramar, other synonyms castes were also included in the said entry and the report of the Standing Committee and the objections and reasons for the delay shown in the Bill presented before the Parliament establish that the amendment was necessitated for inclusion of synonyms in respect of a caste in the existing list, clubbing  castes in the existing list, which are similar to one another from social and anthropological point of view and inclusion of new castes based on social, educational and economic backwardness etc. and seven synonyms castes were added to Entry 54 as they are all the same caste like Cheramar and Pulayan. It is argued that though court cannot add or subtract any entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order it does not apply to an entry already in existence and the evidence establish that Cheramar and Pulaya and Pulayan are all the same caste and therefore election of the first respondent cannot be challenged on the ground that he is Cheramar and not pulaya. It is argued that when the parents are converted to christianity from Hinduism, christian religion cannot be thrusted on the minor and the minor children are free to chose their religion and they could either be Christian or Hindu. Eventhough father of the first respondent was converted to christianity, the mother was never converted and she continued to live as a Hindu Pulaya and the  children born to her including the first respondent, were brought up as Hindu Pulaya. The school registers establish that first respondent was brought up and studied as Hindu Pulaya and therefore he is not disqualified to contest the election for a Constituency reserved for scheduled Caste. The provisions of Kerala Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Regulation of Issuing Community Certificate ) Act, 1996 does not apply to the election for the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly and therefore the caste certificate issued cannot be challenged on the ground that it was not issued as provided under the said Act or the Rules provided thereunder. Exts.R4 and R5 caste certificates were issued as early as 1991 and 1998 and they establish that Ext.P1 caste certificate was not issued using any political pressure as alleged and first respondent. When similar certificate was issued in 1991, he was not a political leader at all. Petitioner who claims that first respondent is a christian by birth and lived as a christian, did not adduce any evidence  and the evidence of PW4 who was examined for that purpose, disprove the case and evidence of RW3, RW8 and Rw9 establish that first respondent was living as a Pulaya and was accepted by the community and hence he is qualified to be a candidate for a Constituency reserved for scheduled caste and the election petition is only to be dismissed.

9. It is the case of the election petitioner  that first respondent is not a Hindu or a member of scheduled caste and therefore he is not qualified to contest the election for a Constituency reserved for scheduled castes. It is the specific case that first respondent is a Christian and there is no scheduled castes in Christian religion and there cannot be a conversion from Christianity to a scheduled caste and even if there was any such conversion, first respondent cannot claim that he is a member of the scheduled caste. It is the specific case that though first respondent claimed that he belongs to Pulayan one among the scheduled castes provided in Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order the Gazette Notification produced by the first respondent shows that he is a Cheramar and not Pulayan. It is contended that as per Entry 54 of Part VIII of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders, Pulayan and Cheramar are different castes though both are scheduled castes, and if first respondent is a Cheramar, he cannot be a Pulayan and therefore first respondent is not entitled to contest the election as a Pulayan. It is also  contended that Gazette Notification shows that he was a Christian Cheramar till 19.8.2008 the date of Ext.P2 Gazette Notification and if at all there is any conversion, it is under Ext.X1(b) Suddhi certificate issued by Aryasamajam. Ext.X1(b) also shows that first respondent is a Cheramar and therefore he cannot be a Pulayan. Learned senior counsel argued that if there is a valid conversion by the parents of the first respondent, it is a fact within the special knowledge of the first respondent and when first respondent did not establish any such conversion by the parents and the evidence of first respondent as RW1 establishes that he was born to a Christian family, by birth he is a Christian and the subsequent conversion in 2008 is only a ruse to claim the benefit of reservation which is not permissible in law and therefore first respondent is not qualified to stand for the election. Learned senior counsel Sri.Ramakumar relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of  Maharashtra v. Milind and others (2001) 1 SCC 4) and in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (2006) 4 SCC 98)argued that no inquiry is permissible by any court whether Pulayan and Cheramar are the same castes because as per the Presidential Order, they are different castes. Relying on the decisions of Apex Court in C.M.Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal (AIR 1976 (1) SCC 863, The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others v. Y. Mohan Rao (1976) 3 SCC 411), Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204)and the Division Bench decision of this court in J. Das v. State of Kerala (AIR 1981 Kerala 164) it was argued that by conversion first respondent cannot claim status of a member of scheduled caste and even if there was a reconversion by a member of a scheduled caste to Hinduism, unless he was accepted by the members of his caste to their fold, on such conversion, the benefit available to a member of the scheduled caste cannot be claimed by him. It was pointed out that evidence of PW6 the  Village Officer and PW5 the then Tahsildar who issued Ext.P1 caste certificate to the effect that first respondent is a member of Pulaya caste establish that Ext.P1 certificate is valueless and on the face of it is unreliable and is to be ignored. It was pointed out that Ext.P1 the caste certificate was issued based on the Gazette Notification and the Suddhi certificate and neither Ext.P2 Gazette Notification nor Ext.X1(b) Suddhi Certificate shows that first respondent belongs to Pulayan caste and therefore such a certificate could not have been issued. It is also argued that the evidence of PW5 establishes that the certificate was not issued after proper inquiry and was issued on the date of the application itself and in any case the application to get the certificate was not submitted by the first respondent as provided under the Kerala (Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Regulation of Issuing Community Certificate) Act, 1996 and no declaration as provided under the Act was submitted and the certificate is also not in the prescribed form and  therefore based on Ext.P1, first respondent cannot claim the status of a member of Pulaya caste. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and others (2005) 2 SCC 244) it was argued that Ext.P1 caste certificate which was procured by the first respondent is to be eshewed, as it is only a fraud played on the Constitution. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and Others (2006) 1 SCC 212),Meera Kanwaria v. Sunita and Others (2006) 1 SCC 344), it was argued that the burden is on the first respondent to establish that he is a member of Pulaya caste and therefore he is qualified to stand for the election. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah v. Ramachandra Veerappa and another 1996(4) SCC 431) learned senior counsel argued that court cannot give any direction that Cheramar caste is synonymous to Pulaya caste and therefore first respondent is not qualified to stand for the  election in Constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes or to represent the Constituency which is reserved for scheduled castes claiming to be a member of Pulaya caste.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that though it was contended by the petitioner that parents of the first respondent are christians, the only evidence let in by the petitioner, apart from examining himself was that of PW3, the Vicar of St.Xavier's Church, Mannarapara and PW4 the President of Manjoor Mandalalam Congress Committee and the evidence of PW1 establishes that he raised the allegations in the election petition without any inquiry. It was pointed out that even though PW1 contended that mother of the first respondent who was examined as RW2 is a Christian, the evidence of RW1 that she was never converted to christianity and was born as a Pulaya and is living as Pulaya was not challenged and the evidence of RW2 establishes that she is a Pulaya. Learned counsel submitted that though the father of the first respondent Kuttappan was born  to a converted Christian, the grandfather of the first respondent was also a Pulaya before his conversion and Kuttappan lived as a Pulaya and married RW2 a Pulaya and brought up the children including the first respondent as Pulaya and therefore first respondent is a member of Pulaya community. Learned counsel argued that first respondent could at best be the son of an intercaste parents and when the mother of first respondent is admittedly a Pulaya, first respondent is entitled to opt to live as a Hindu Pulaya and he was born and brought up and is living as Pulaya and Ext.R1(a) SSLC book, Ext.R2 the extract of admission register whereunder he was admitted in the Ist standard and Ext.R3 extract of admission register whereunder he was admitted in the Vth standard show that first respondent is a Hindu pulaya. It was also pointed out that at an undisputed point of time on 4.6.1991 the Tahsildar had issued Ext.R4 caste certificate to the effect that first respondent is a Pulaya and again in 1998 Ext.R5 caste certificate was also issued to the  same effect. Ext.R6 the certificate issued by the Kerala Pulaya Mahasabha with the evidence of RW9 the then President , RW8 the Secretary and RW4 a resident of Manjoor as well as a member of Kerala Pulaya Mahasabha were pressed to establish that Pulaya community had accepted the first respondent and his family as members of Pulaya community and therefore first respondent is qualified to stand for election as a member of scheduled caste. It was pointed out that though Ext.X1(b) suddhi certificate was obtained and for that purpose Ext.P2 Gazette Notification was made, the suddhi was performed and notification was published only to remove the cloud, as first respondent was born to a converted Christian father and based on Ext.P2 Gazette Notification or Ext.X1(b) Sudhi certificate it cannot be said that first respondent was either a Christian till the publication of the Gazette Notification or that he is a Cheramar. Learned counsel argued that Cheramar and Pulaya is one and the same caste and as per the Presidential Order, 1950 item 54 included only Pulayan and Cheramar  and with effect from 17.12.2002 by Act 61 of 2002 item 54 was amended including Pulayan, Cheramar, Pulaya, Pulayar, Cherama, Cheraman, Wayanad Pulayan, Wayanadan Pulayan, Matha, Matha Pulayan and the said Act was enacted based on the Constitution Scheduled Castes Orders (Amendment) Bill 2001 and the said bill and the statement of objects and reasons establish that the amendment was necessitated for correction of spelling errors, inclusion of synonymous communities, imposing area restrictions, checking linguistic and phonetic variations and clubbing certain entries etc and therefore it is clear that Pulayan and Cheramar and Pulaya are all the synonymous names of one and the same caste. Relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Thevan v. Union of India & Others (1985 KLT 30) which was followed by another learned single Judge in C.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India and another 1990(2) KLJ 835) it was argued that Pulaya and Pulayan and Cheramar are all synonymous names of the same caste and in such  circumstances, first respondent is qualified to stand for election and represent a Constituency reserved for scheduled caste.

(vii) deletion of communities from the list, in respect of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala and the Union Territory of  Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

20.The Standing Committee noted that the changes proposed are of three categories viz inclusion of eight new communities, exclusion of 24 communities and modification of synonyms, area restrictions and merger of communities in respect of 49 communities. The committee approved the amendments in Part VIII of the Schedule I relating to Kerala are exclusion 7, inclusion 1 and modification 11 making a total of 19 amendments. Entry 54 was substituted by adding eight new communities. The amendment was for inclusion of synonyms in respect of a caste in the existing list or clubbing castes in the existing list, which are similar to one another from social and anthropological point of view or corrections in spelling of the caste, in the existing list, keeping in view the linguistic and phonetic variations or imposition of area restriction in the specific castes in the  existing list, keeping in view relative social, educational and economic backwardness and deletion of communities. It is thus by Act 61 of 2002, Entry 54 was substituted by adding to the existing Pulayan, Cheramar communities Pulaya, Pulayar, Cherama, Cheraman, Wayanad Pulayan, Wayanadan Pulayan, Matha and Matha Pulayan were included. Though in the nomination submitted by the first respondent, he had declared that he is a member of Pulaya caste, in Ext.R1(a), R4 and R5 his caste is shown as Hindu Pulaya Ext.P1 certificate also shows that he is Pulayan. In the written statement first respondent contended that he belongs to Pulaya caste. As per Entry 54 Pulaya, Pulayan and Pulayar are different communities. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the pleading in the written statement that he belongs to Pulaya caste was for the reason that Pulayan and  Pulaya are synonyms and it is one and the same caste. Learned counsel pointed out that this court in Thevan's case (supra) also declared that Pulaya and Pulayan is the same caste. At that time entry 54 does not take in Pulaya, but only Pulayar. A learned single Judge in Thevan's case considered the question whether Pulayan notified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 and Pulaya are the same or different communities. After elaborately quoting the Travancore State Manual and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa and Others (AIR 1965 SC 1269) this court held that Pulaya community is the same as Pulayan community notified as a scheduled caste under entry 54 of Part VIII of Schedule I of the Presidential Order and both are only synonyms and there is no difference. It was therefore declared that Pulaya is a scheduled caste within the meaning  of Entry 54 in the list of scheduled caste in the Presidential Order. Another learned single Judge in C.K. Balakrishnan's case (supra) followed the said decision. Learned senior counsel argued that in view of the later declaration of law by the Constitution Bench, the court cannot make any such declaration and therefore the said decision is not good law.