LexGANPAT versus RETURNING OFFICER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
923 A GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER & ORS. December 4, 1974 R [A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA JJ.] Electio11-Member of Scheduled Caste-Al/egatio11 that relllrned cmu/ic/at1! hecC1me a convert to B11ddlrism-Proo/. c D E F G In the election to the State Legislative Assembly to fill 11p a seat reserved for members of . the scheduled castes from· Nagpur, the second respondent was de_clared elected. The appellant challenged the ele:tion, on the ground, inter alta, that the second respondent ceased to be a Hindu having been converted to B11ddhism. The High Court dismissed the election p.>tition. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, JI ELD : (1} The second respondent was a well known Doctor in Nagpur, .the appellant belonged to Nagpur and they belonged to scheduled castes b~forc the second respondent's alleged conversion to Buddhism. And yet, the appel- lant has not giyen the date, the place or the drcumstances under which the second respondent became a convert "lo Buddhism. Nor did the appelJant object at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, that the se1;<>nd respondent was not a member of the scheduled caste. [925 U-926 B, F~J (2} The second respondent was born a Hindu and was married according to Hindu rites. He went to Enl)land on a Government scholarship given to members of scheduled ·castes to study Medicine. If. he was not a member of a scheduled caste he had run a risk of prosecution when he so claimed for gettina the scholarship, and also rnn a similar risk for perjury in the ·present case. [926 G-Hl · (3) Merely becall'Se the nieces of the second respondent were married I1ccording to Budahist rites, the Invitation for their marriage was in the Buddhist . form, the second respondent's name was printed as one of those joining in the invitlltion, at the time of the marriage the pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and the Buddha were garlanded, . and a Buddhist Bhiku officiated at the marriage, It could not be held that the second respondent was a Buddhist. [927 A-D, E. GJ (a} The evidence shows that there is very little difference between a wedd- ing according to "Buddhist rites and one according to Hindu rites. _Moreover, Buddhist's rites are followed even where one of the parties to the marriage is . a non-Buddhist, and there is no evidence that the Hindu partner does not con~ tlnue to profess Hinduism thereafter. [927 D-E, 928 D-EJ (b} The names of brothers are included in wedding invitations under the head "With best compliments of', very often without their iiermission. [927 B-CJ (c) The picture of Dr. Ambedkar might have been garlanded be:ause he WQS held in great veneration by the Scheduled castes. Th~refore, mete!y because of the garlanding and the Buddhist Bhiku officiating at· the marriage, the wedd- ing could not be considered to be according to Buddhist rites. (928 A- BJ (4} When one is born a Hindu .the fact that he g(\CS to. a Buddhi~t temple or I!. Church or Durga cannot be said to show that he 1s no more 11 Hmdtt and · that he had changed bis religion. [929 C-DJ (5} Also from the fa:t that Di". anJ Mrs. Ambedkar and a lar~e numl>~r of people op°enly got themselves converted to Buddhism it does not follow that all the members of the scheduled castes follow~d m their foot steps. [929 BJ H .. ( 6} Religion is eSS!lf!tially a ~ighly pers<!nal matter al!d Hinduism is so tolerant and Hindu reltg1ous prac!tces s<;> vane4 .and eclecttc \hat o!le wo~d find it difficult to say whether a. person is pract!smg Of professing Hm~u reh- gion 9r not. Jn such a matter. the _open assertion by a person, especially an 924 SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS [1975] 2 s.c.a. educated member of society, about the reliaion be professes should be given considerable weight over tlie interested testimony of others based upon stray instances. · [92~ c, 930 F-G] . . C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No .. 348 of 1973. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th. November, 1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Election Petition No. 1 of 1972. . L. M. Singhvi, M. C. Rajkarna, S. N. Ponikar, A. G. Maneses, K. J. John and J. B. Dadachanji,' for the appellant. · G. L. Sa'nghi, S. B. Wad, B. U. Wahano and Jayashree Wad, for respondent No. 2. K. L. Hathi and M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 21 and 22. The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by ALAOIRISWAMI, J. In the election to the Maharashtra Le!~S lative Assembly held in March
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.