G.M. ARUMUGAM versus S. RAJGOPAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 19-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
82 
G.M.ARUMUGAM 
v. 
S. RAJGOPAL & OTHERS 
December 19, 1975 
!Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKAR!A, JJ.] 
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Paras 2 and 3-Adi Dravida, 
l·o111'ertcd to Clnislia11ity and reconverted to Hinduisn1-lf and wlu'n could be 
treated as Adi Dravida. 
When conversion affects caste. 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) s. 
.iboiil caste of a candidat€ in one ell·ction petition 
ari5es in another later election. 
11-Res judicata-Dec1sio11 
if res~judicata lVhen question 
In the 1967 election to the State Legislative Assembly, the appellant and the 
1st respondent clai1ning to be Adi Dravidas, stood as candidates for a 
seat 
reserved for Scheduled Castes. 
The respondent was declared elected. 
The ap-
pellant's election petition challenging the election was 
allov-'ed 
by the High 
Court. This Court dismissed the respondent's appeal holding, (I) that the res· 
pon<lent \Vas converted to Christianity in 1949, (2) that on such conversion he 
ceased to be an Adi Dravidn, ( 3) that he \Vas reconverted to Hinduism but ( 4) 
assuming that membership of a caste can be acquired on conversion or recon-
versiL1n to Hinduism, the respondent had frtiled to establish lhat he became a 
member of the Adi Dravida caste after reconversion. 
In the 1972 elections, the appellant and respondent again filed their nomi-
nations as Adi Dravidas for the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes. 
On ob-
jection by the appellant, the lleturning Officer rejected the nomination of the 
respondent on the view that on conversion to Christianity. he ceased t•J be an 
Adi Dravida and that on reconversion, he could not claim the benefit of the 
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 
1950. 
The appellant was 
declared 
elected. 
The respondent challenged the election and the 1-ligh Court held thrit 
the question (a) whether the respondent embraced Christi<Jnity in 1949, (bl 
whether on such conver<;ion he ceased to be nn Adi Dravida, and ( c) whether 
he was reconverted to Hindtlism, were concluded by the decision of this Court 
in the earlier case. In fact, the respondent so conceded on the first tv-'o ~tspects. 
The High Court, however, held that the respondent had established twelve cir-
circustanccs, 
which 
happened 
subsequent 
to 
the 
earlier 
election 
showing thrtt he 
\Vas 
accepted 
intq their 
fold by 
the 
members· of 
the 
.1\di Dravida caste, that he was, therefore, at the material time, an Adi Dravida 
professing Hindu religion ns required by paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution 
/Scheduled Cnstes) Order, and that therefore, his nomination wa~ impr·operly 
rejected. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (1) The question whether :he respondent abandoned Hinduism and 
embraced Christianity in 1949 is essentially a question of fact. 
Tflc respondent, 
having conceded before the High Court, that in view of the decision of this Court 
in the earlier case, the question did not survive for consideration ;.1nd the High 
Court, having acted on that concession, the respondent could not be pern1itted 
to raise an argument thnt the evidence did not establish that he en1braced Chris-
tianity in 1949. l89 D-F] 
r2) Similarly. the question \Vhcther the respondent was reconverted to H-indu-
ism stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the eariier case and it 
mu~t be held that since prior to January 1967. the respondent \\'<lS re-converted 
to Hinduism, he was, at the material time. professing the Hindll religion so as to 
satisfy the requirement of para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order. 
[94 C-DJ 
1 
• 
! 
• 
G. M. ARUMUGAM V. S. RAJGOPAL 
83 
(3) The High Court was right in the view that on r:_ecoversion to Hinduis~, 
the respondent could once again reconvert to his original Adi Dravida ~aste tf 
he was accepted, as such, by the other members of that caste; _and that, in fact, 
the respondent after his reconversion to Hinduism, was recognised and accep~ed 
·1s a member of the Adi Dravida caste by the other members of that community. 
' 
[97 A-B, 98 G] 
(a) Since a caste is a social combination of person governed by its rules 
and regulations, it may, if 
its rules and regulations so provide, admit a ~ew 
member just as it may expel an existing member. The rules and regulations 
of the caste may not have· been formalised-they may not exist i~ black and 
\vhite : they n1ay consist only of practices and usages. 
If, according to 
the 
practice and

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