BHAIYA RAM MUNDA versus ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 804 · Decided: 14-08-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~04 
BHAIYA RAM MUNDA 
v. 
ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS. 
August 14, 1970 
(J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.j 
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)Order, 1950, Part ill-When evid•nce 
adniissible for finding the scope of an entry in Order-So111e sub-tribes 
under an entry included-Whether other sub-tribes dee111ed ·excludcd-
Effect of adniission by uieniber of ScheduJ£'d Tribe that he was not a 111e1n-
ber of the tribe. 
In Part ll! of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued 
by the President of India under Art. 342, Munda is specified as a schedul-
ed tribe, but not Patar. The first respondent was a Patar. He was declared 
elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from a scheduled tribes constitu-
ency. 
The appellant, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed an elec-
tion petition tor setting aside the election on the ground that the first res-
;>ondent was not a member of a scheduled tribe. The High Co4rt dismissed 
the petition holding that the first respondent •v:is a Munda and was hence 
a member o~ a scheduled tribe. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD ' (I) Evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing what 
an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean, but not so as 
to modify the Order by including other tribes. Since the first respondent's 
A 
B 
c 
D 
case was not that Patars arc a distinct co1nn1unity who arc regard1~d as 
E 
Mundas but that Pata.rs are Mundas, evidence may be given to sho\v that 
the entry Munda .includes Patars. [814 B-C; 815 A] 
B. Basava/ingappa v. Mu11iclii1111appa, [1965] l S.C.R. 316, Bl1aiya-
/a/ v. Harikislwn Singh & Ors. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877, Laxma11 Siddappa Naik 
v. Kattima11i Clwniappa lamappanna & Ors, 
[1968] 2 S.C.R. 805 
and 
Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. C.A.No. 1622/67 dt. 
21-5-1968, re-
ferred ft. 
F 
(2) Whether a particular person is a member of a scheduled tribe so 
declared by the President is essentially a question of law. 
Though an 
adn1ission made hy him expressly or hy in1plication that he is not a memher 
of a scheduled trihc i:;; evidence against hitn in an election petition. tho 
evidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C'I 
(~j Jf a n1en1bcr of a scheduled tribe, tran~fers property by a deed in 
G 
whiah he describes himself to be not a member of the scheduled tribe 
in order to avoid refusal of registration u_ndcr s._ 46 of the Chota Nagpur 
Tenancy Act, he will not, on that account, be t~·isentitlcd to clairti the 
status of a member of scheduled tribe. It could not be said, on that 
groun\j alone, that the tra~sferor was not a member of a scheduled tribe 
or \<US estopped from settmg up that status. [808 D-EI 
( 4) The e>idcncc in the case established that Patars arc a sub-tribe 
H 
of fl,funtlas <tOd thal they arc not diffcrcnl fro1n Munda,,·, 
[SJJ F.(jJ 
(5) If Patars arc Mundas, because some sub-tribes of "AfundtlS arc 
BHAIYA RAM V, ANIRUDH PATAR (Shah, J.) 
805 
A 
enumerate<l in the Presidential Order and others arc not, no inference 
will arise that those not enumerated are not Mundas. 
Merely because 
Patars are not specifically mentioned in the Presidetial order, they can-
not be on_ that account alone he excluded from the general heading of 
Munda. [813 G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 
B 
1969. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the ,iudgment and order dated August 19, 1969 
of the Patna High Court in Election Petition: No. 9 of 1969. 
D. Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant. 
K. K. Sinha, S. Thakur Prasad and S. S. Jauhar, for respon-
dent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
At the "mid-term elections" held in January 1969 
Anirudh Patar (the !st respondent in this appeal) was declared 
elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Tamar Assem-
bly 
Constituancy No. 296 (Scheduled Tribes). 
Bhaiya Ram 
Munda-an unsuccessful candidate at the election-applied to the 
High Court of Patna for an order setting aside the election on 
the plea that the 1st respondent was not a member of a scheduled 
tribe and was on that account not qualified under s. 5 of the 
Representation of the· People Act, 1951 to be chosen to fill a 
seat in the Legislative Assembly of Bihar from a reserved consti-
tuency for scheduled tribes. 
The High Court dismissed 
the 
petition holding that the 1st respondent was a member of a 
Scheduled Tribe called "Munda" specified in Part III of the 
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 issued

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.