Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 u-as, 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 s. 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. This Court addressed itself to four question, 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 a 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 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 t 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 con version 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.(1) This decision was given by a Bench consisting of two judges on 3rd May, 1968. In the three or four years that followed certain events happened to which we shall refer a little later. Suffice it to state for the present that, according to the 1st respondent, these events showed that the members of the Adi Dravida caste accepted him as a member and regarded him as belonging to their fold. The next General Election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly took place in 1972. There was again a contest from 68 KGF Constituency which was reserved for candidates from Scheduled Castes. The appellant filed his nomination as a candidate from this constituency and so did the 1st respondent. The nomination of the 1st respondent was, however, objected by the appellant on the ground that the 1st respondent was not an Adi Dravida professing Hindu religion at the date of filing his nomination and he was, therefore, not qualified to stand as a candidate for the reserved seat from this constituency. The 1st respondent rejoined by saying that he was never converted to Christianity and that in any event, even if it was held that he had be" come a Christian, he was reconverted to Hinduism since long and was accepted by the members of the Adi Dravida caste as belonging to their fold and was, therefore, an Adi Dravida professing Hindu religion at the material date and hence qualified to stand as a candidate. The Returning officer, by an order dated 9th February, 1972 up held the objection of the appellant and taking the view that, on con version to Christianity, the 1st respondent ceased to be an Adi Dravida and thereafter on reconversion, he could not claim the benefit of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order, 1950, the Returning officer (1) S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Arumugam, [1959] 1 S.C.R. 254. 7-L390 SCI/76 rejected the nomination of the 1st respondent. The election thereafter took place without the 1st respondent as a candidate and the appeliant, having obtained the highest number of votes, was declared elected.

The 1st respondent filed Election Petition No. 3 of 1972 in the High Court of Mysore challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination of the 1st respondent was improperly rejected. This was a ground under s. 100(1)(c) of the Act and if well founded, it would be sufficient, without more, to invalidate the election. The point which was, therefore, seriously debated before the High Court was whether the nomination of the 1st respondent was improperly. rejected and that in its turn depended on the answer to the question whether the 1st respondent was an Adi Dravida professing Hindu religion at the date of filing his nomination. There were four aspects bearing on this question which arose for consideration and they were broadly the same as in the earlier case (supra)., namely, whether the 1st respondent embraced Christianity in 1949, whether on his conversion to Christianity he ceased to belong to Adi Dravida caste, whether he was reconverted to Hinduism and whether on such reconversion, he was accepted by the members of the Adi Dravida caste as belonging to their fold. So far as the first three aspects were concerned, the High Court took the view that they must be taken to be concluded by the decision of this Court in the earlier case (supra) and the discussion of the question must, therefore, proceed on the established premise that the Ist respondent was born an Adi Dravida Hindu, he was converted to Christianity in 1949 and on such conversion he lost his capacity as an Adi Dravida Hindu and at least by the year 1967, he had once again started professing Hindu religion. Visa-vis the fourth aspect, the High Court observed: "It is settled law that reconversion to Hinduism does not require any formal ceremony or rituals or expiratory ceremonies, that a reconvert to Hinduism can revert to his original Hindu caste on acceptance by the members of that caste and that the quantum and degree of proof of acceptance depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, according to the established customs prevalent in a particular locality amongst the caste there", and on this view of the law, the High Court proceeded to examine the evidence led on behalf of the parties and pointed out that this evidence established twelve important circumstances subsequent to January-February 1967 which clearly showed that the 1st respondent was accepted into their fold by the members of the Adi Dravida caste and he was, therefore, at the material time, an Adi Dravida professing Hindu religion as required by Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) order, 1950. The High Court, in this view, held that the nomination of the 1st respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning officer and that invalidated the election under s. 100(1)(c) of the Act. The High Court accordingly set aside the election of the appellant and declared it to be void. This judgement of the High Court is impugned in the present appeal under s. 116A of the Act.

The last contention, which formed the subject matter of controversy between the parties, raised the issue whether on reconversion to Hinduism, the 1st respondent could once again become a member of the Adi Dravida caste, assuming that he ceased to be such on conversion to Christianity. The argument of the appellant was that once the 1st respondent renounced Hinduism and embraced Christianity, he could not go back to the Adi Dravida caste on reconversion to Hinduism. He undoubtedly became a Hindu, but he could no longer claim to be a member of the Adi Dravida caste. This argument is not sound on principle and it also runs counter to a long line of decided cases. Ganapathi Iyer, a distinguished scholar and jurist, pointed out as far back as 1915 in his well known treatise on 'Hindu Law': -

reconversion to Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of the Scheduled Caste to which he belonged prior to his conversion. We accordingly agree with the view taken by the High Court that on reconversion to Hinduism, the 1st respondent could once again revert to his original Adi Dravida caste if he was accepted as such by the other members of the caste.

That takes us to the question whether in fact the 1st respondent was accepted as a member of the Adi Dravida caste after his reconversion to Hinduism. This Court in the earlier decision between the parties found that the 1st respondent had not produced evidence to show that after his reconversion to Hinduism, any step had been taken by the members of the Adi Dravida caste indicating that he was being accepted as a member of that caste. The 1st respondent, therefore, in the present case, led considerable oral as well as documentary evidence tending to show that subsequent to January-February 1967, the 1st respondent had been accepted as a member of the Adi Dravida caste. The High Court referred to twelve circumstances appearing from the evidence and held on the basis of these twelve circumstances, that the Adi Dravida caste had accepted the 1st respondent as its member and he accordingly belonged to the Adi Dravida caste at the material time. Now, out of these twelve circumstances, we do not attach any importance to the first circumstance which refers to the celebrations of the marriages of his younger brother Govindaraj and Manickam by the 1st respondent in the Adi Dravida manner, because it is quite natural that if Govindaraj and Manickam were Adi Dravida Hindus, their marriages would be celebrated according to Adi Dravida rites and merely because the 1 st respondent, as their elder brother, celebrated their marriages, it would not follow that he was also an Adi Dravida Hindu. The second circumstance that the 1st respondent was looked upon as a peacemaker among the Adi Dravida Hindus of K.G.F. cannot also be regarded as of much significance, because, if the Ist respondent was a recognised leader, it is quite possible that the Adi Dravida Hindus of K.G.F. might go to him for resolution of their disputes, even though he himself might not be an Adi Dravida Hindu. But the third, fourth and fifth circumstances are of importance, because, unless the 1st respondent was recognised and accepted as an Adi Dravida Hindu, he would not have been invited to lay the foundation stone for the construction of the new wall of the temple of Jambakullam, which was essentially a temple of Adi Dravida Hindus, nor would he have been requested to participate in the Maroazhi Thiruppavai celebration at the Kannabhiran Temple situate at III Line, Kennedy Block, K.G.F., which was also a temple essentially maintained by the Adi Dravida Hindus and equally, he would not have been invited to preside at the Adi Krittikai festival at Mariamman Temple in I, Post office Block, Marikuppam, K.G.F. where the devotees are Adi Dravidas or to start the procession of the Deity at such festival. These three circumstances are strongly indicative of the fact that the 1st respondent was accepted and treated as a member by the Adi Dravida community. So also does the sixth circumstance that the 1st respondent was a member of the Executive Committee of the Scheduled Caste Cell in the organisation of the Ruling Congress indicate in the same direction. The seventh and eighth circumstances are again of a neutral character The funeral ceremonies and obsequies of the father of the 1st respondent would naturally be performed according to the Adi Dravida Hindu rites if he was an Adi Dravida Hindu and that would not mean that the 1st respondent was also an Adi Dravida Hindu. Similarly, the fact that the 1st respondent participated in the first annual ceremonies of the late M. A. Vadivelu would not indicate that the 1st respondent was also an Adi Dravida Hindu like late M. A. Vadivelu. But the ninth circumstance is again very important. It is significant that the children of the 1st respondent were registered in the school as Adi Dravida Hindus and even the appellant himself issued a certificate " stating that R. Kumar, the son of the 1st respondent, was a Scheduled Caste Adi Dravida Hindu. The tenth circumstance that the first respondent participated in the All India Scheduled Castes Conference at New Delhi on 30th and 31st August, 1968 may not be regarded as of any particular importance. It would merely indicate his intention and desire to regard himself as a member of the Adi Dravida Caste. The eleventh circumstance is, however, of some importance, because it shows that throughout the 1st respondent was treated as a member of the Adi Dravida Caste and he was never disowned by the members of that caste. They always regarded him as an Adi Dravida belonging to their fold. But the most important of all these circumstance is the twelfth, namely, the Scheduled Caste Conference held at Skating Rink, Nundydroog Mine, K.G.F. On 11th August. 1968. The High Court has discussed the evidence in regard to this conference in some detail. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses on this point, but we do not find anything wrong in the appreciation of their evidence by the High Court. We are particularly impressed by the evidence of Kakkan (PW 13). The cross- examination of J. C. Adimoolam (RW 1) is also quite revealing. We find ourselves completely in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that this conference, attended largely by Adi Dravida Hindus, was held on 11th August, 1968 inter alia with the object of re-admitting the 1st respondent into the fold of Adi Dravida caste and not only was a purificatory ceremony performed on the 1st respondent at this conference with a view to clearing the doubt which had been cast on his membership of the Adi Dravida caste by the decision of this Court in the earlier case but an address Ex. P-56 was also presented to the 1st respondent felicitating him on this occasion.