PARSRAM AND ANR. versus SHIVCHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 28-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
I 
H 
' 
PARSRAM AND ANR. 
v. 
SHIVCHAND AND ORS. 
November 28, 1968 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 
341-President's power 
under-Castes 
specified in President's order only to be 
treated as 
Scheduled Castes--
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, item 9-Scheduled Castes 
in Punjah-Mochis not mentioned, 
chamar~ mentioned-Court 
cannot 
decide on evidence whether the term mochi is synonymous with the term 
chamar. 
Appellant No. 1 filed a petition challenging the election of the first 
respondent 'from the Lambi Assembly Constituency (reserved seat) 
in 
the district of Ferozepur, Punjab, at the 1967 general election. It was 
urged in the petition that the nomination paper of appellant No. 2 had 
been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer who had held that appel-
lant No. 2 was a mochi and as such not a member of the chamar caste 
mentioned in item 9 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 
issued under Art. 341 of the Constitution. It was also urged that the 
Returning Officer had at first accepted the nomination 
paper but bad 
subsequently reviewed his own order. 
The High Court dismissed the 
petition, whereupon an appeal was filed in this Court. 
HELD : (i) On the evidence it was not possible to hold that the Re-
turning Officer had after announcing his decision accept:ng the nomina-
tion paper reviewed his own order afterwards. 
(ii) No ground had been made out for disturbing the conclusion of 
the trial court on the evidence that appellant No. 2 was a mochi and not 
a member rif the chamar caste. 
(iii) It was not open to this Court to scrntinise whether a 
person 
properly described as a mochi also fell within the caste of chama'fs and 
could describe himself as such. 
The question was one the determination 
of which lay within the exclusive power of the President under Art. 341 
of the Constitution. [1003 B-C] 
Basava/ingappa v. D. Munichinnappa & Ors. 
[1965] I S.C.R. 316 
and Bhaiya Lal v. Harikrishen Singh & Ors., 
[1965] 2 S.C.R. 
877, 
applied. 
Article 341 empowered the President to specify not only entire castes 
races or tribes but also parts or groups within castes, 
races 
or tribes 
which were to be treated as Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular 
State or Union Territory. So far as chamars and mochis are concerned, 
a reference to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 shows 
that the President was not o'f opinion that they were to be considered to 
belong to the same caste in all the different 
States. 
In several States 
chamars and mochis were put on the same 
footing 
but' not so in the 
State of Punjab. Even afte~ the. Reorganisation of the P~njab Act,. 19?6 
when the question of spec1ficat1on of Scheduled Castes m the terntones 
created came up for his consideration the President did not take the view 
that mochis should be classed with chamars in so far as the States of 
Haryana, Punjab and the Union Territory rif Chandigarh were concern-
ed though he directed that in the Union Territories of Delhi and Hima-
chal Pradesh mochis and chaman were to be placed in the same group, 
[1000 E, H; 1001 A-DJ 
. 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[196912 s.c.R. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1smcT10N : Civil Appeal No. 1869 of 
A 
1967. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated October 24, 1967 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petifion 14 
of 1967. 
K. P. Bhandari and Hardev Singh, for the appellants. 
C. L. Lakhanpal and D. D. Sharma, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Mitter, J. In the election petition out of which the present 
appeal arises, the main question canv11ssed was, whether the c 
nomination paper of respondent No. 8 (appellant No. 2 before 
this Court) was wrongly rejected. 
It is admitted that if the 
rejection was wrong, the election cannot stand. 
The petitioner challenged the election to the Lambi Assembly 
Constituency (reserved seat) in the district of Ferozepore. There 
were eight candidates, the first respondent being the returned 
D. 
candidate. The petition was filed by one of the unsuccessful can-
didates impleading the other seven candidates, and Kishan Lal 
whose nomination paper was rejected. 
According to the peti-
tioner, Kishan Lal was a Hindu and being a Chamar by caste 
he belonged to a scheduled caste within the meaning of para-
graph 2 read with Part X of the Con

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