BHAIYALAL versus HARIKISHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 05-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JI 
c 
D 
BHAIYALAL 
v. 
HAROOSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 
Febnllhy 5, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND 
s. M. SIKRI, JI.] 
877 
Constitution of India, Art. 341-Presldtnt of lnd/4-Spocifimtion 
of Scheduled caste in relation Jo parts of State-Validity o/-Chamar, If 
inc/wled In Dohtu caste. 
The appellant's election was challenged inter a/la, on the ground that 
bo belonged to the Dohar caste which was not recognised as a Scheduled 
Caste for the district in question and so his declaration that he belonged 
to the Chamar caste which was a Schedule Caste was improperly and ille-
plly accepted by the Returning Olli=. The Election Tribunal declared 
the election invalid. 
The finding was confirmed on appeal by the High 
Court. In appeal to the Supreme Court. 
HELD: (i) The plea that though the appellant ia not a Chamar u 
auch, he can claim the same status by reason of the fa& that he belonged 
to Dohar Caste which is a sulxaste of the Chamar ·caste cannot be 
acx:epled. An enquiry of thia kind would not be permissible having rep.rd 
to the provisions contained in Art. 341 of the Constitution. [881 F-0] 
Ba.ravalingappa v. D. Munlcliinnappa, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 316, refened 
E 
to. 
(ii) In specifying castes, races or tribes under Art. 341 of the Con-
atitution, the President bas been expressly authorised to limit the notiftca-
tion to parts of or groups within the castes, race or tribe, the President 
may well come to the conclusion that not the whole caste, race or tribe 
but parts of or groups within them should be specified. Similarly the Presi-
dent can specify castes, races or tribes or parts thereof in relation not only 
to the entire State, but in relation to the parts of the State where be ia 
F 
wisfied that the examination of the social and educational backwardneos 
of the race, caste or tribe justifies such specification. [882 H-883 CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 765 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
G April 23, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal 
No. 24 of 1963. 
N. C. Chatterjee, V. S. Sawhney, S. S. Kanjuja and Ganpat 
Rai, for the appellant. 
G. S. Pathak and Dipak Datta Chaudhry, for respondent No. 1. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal by special leave arises out 
of an Election petition filed by respondent No. 
1, Harikishan 
878 
SUPIU!MB COURT REPORTS 
[1965] 2 S. C.R. 
Singh, challenging the validity of the election of the appellant, 
A 
'"
Bhaiyalal, in a reserved seat in the Berasia Constituency in the 
district of Sehore in Madhya Pradesh. The election in question 
was held in February, 1962; at this election the appellant, respon-
dent No. 1, and three others offered themselves as candidates. The 
awellant was declared duly elected on the 26th February, 1962 
since he had polled the highest number of votes. His next rival B 
was respondent No. 1. By this petition, respondent No. 1 challeng-
ed the validity of the appellant's election on the ground that the 
appellant belonged. to the Dohar caste and was not a Chamar. 
The appellant had filed his nomination.paper on the 19th January, 
l 962 before the Returning Officer at Sehore and had declared that C 
he was a member of the Chamar scheduled caste of the State of 
Madhya Pradesh in relation to Sehore district. This declaration 
was accepted by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 1 con-
tended that Dohar caste was not recognised as the scheduled caste 
for the district of Sehore and Raisen, and so, the Returning Officer 
had improperly and illegally. accepted the declaration of the appel-
D 
!ant as one belonging to tile Chamar scheduled caste. Since the 
appellant did not belong to the scheduled caste in question, he 
was not entitled to stand for election for the reserved seat in 
respect of the said Constituency. This is the basis on which the 
validity of the appellant's election was challenged by respondent 
No. 1. On the other hand, the appellant urged that the election 
E 
petition filed by respondent No. 1 was not maintainable inasmuch 
as he had not deposited the security of Rs. 2,000 in the manner 
preecribed by the statutory rules. 
On these pleadings, the Election Tribunal framed appropriate 
issues. The first four issues covered the principal contention raised 1 
by respondent No. 1 against the validity of the appellant's nomina-
tion as a member belonging to the Chamar

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