LexM. CHANDRA versus M. THANGAMUTHU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F [2010] 11 S.C.R. 38 M. CHANDRA v. M. THANGAMUTHU & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7284 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.) Election laws: Election on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste - Challenged on the ground that the returned candidate was a Christian and not belonging to the Hindu Pallan Community - High Court shifting the burden on the returned candidate to prove that she had renounced Christianity and was practicing Hindu faith; and holding the election as void on the ground that returned candidate failed to discharge the burden placed on her - Propriety of - Held: In an election petition, the burden lies on the election petitioner to prove the charges made against the returned candidate - High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof on the returned candidate - Election petitioner failed to disprove the evidence adduced by the returned candidate - Birth records, entries in the telephone application and voters list not relevant for proving that the returned candidate was professing Christianity - Though the returned candidate did not produce the original conversion certificate, there was no reason to disbelieve the duplicate that she had submitted, as the petitioner failed to provide a. reasoned rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the returned candidate to prove her cas,e - There was nothing to show that the community certificate was issued illegally or in contravention of the valid G procedure - The evidence produced by election petitioner was c;ontradictory and smacked of political rivalry - The order of High Court set aside - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 341 - Evidence - Burden to prove. H 38 M. CHANDRA v. M. THANGAMUTHU & ANR. 39 Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950: A Paras 2 and 3 - 'Profess' a religion - Held: ff a public declaration is made by a person that he has ceased to belong to his old religion and has accepted another religion, he will be taken as professing the other religion -: In order to claim B the benefits of reservation under the Presidential Order, a. person must establish that the caste to which he belongs is notified in the Presidential Order and he is 'not professing a different religion - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 341. Conversion of religion - Held: To prove conversion from C one religion to another, two elements to be satisfied are that there has to be a conversion and acceptance into the community to which the person converted - Evidence_ Evidence: Secondary evidence - A party who wishfJS to 0 rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible - However,\ if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a E _copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the i contents or in another form - The secondary evidence· must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged 'copy is in fact a true c;opy of the original - The exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide lrelief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party - Election laws_ F The appellant was declared elected in the election to the legislative assembly on a seat reserved for the members. of Scheduled Castes. The election petitioner- G I respondent no.1 questioned the election of the appellant before the High Court on the ground that the appellant belonged to Christian Pallan Community and had made false declarations relating to her community status and school education in her nomination papers. The High H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A Court placed the burden on the appellant to prove that she renounced Christianity and held that the appellant did not satisfactorily discharge the burden of proof placed on her. It declared the election of the appellant as void on the ground that the circumstances in which the B community certificate was granted was highly suspicious, as it was issued within two days of the receipt of the application. It further held that the original conversion certificate was not produced by the appellant and only a duplicate copy was produced and, therefore1 c her claim for conversion cannot be accepted. In the instant appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.