LexS. RAJAGOPAL versus C. M. ARMUGAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S. RAJAGOPAL v. C. M. ARMLGAM & ORS. May 3, 1968 lJ. C. SHAH Al'D Y. BHARGAVA, JJ.) Constitution (Sclreduled Castrs) Order 1950-Scheduled Caste llindu becun1i11g a Christian-Reconverted to Jlindui.nn-Does not beco111~ a 111en1ber of his previous caste unless accepted by coste. ·11ie appellant filed his nomination papers at the 1967 General Election Grom a constituency rcscrvctl for members of the Scheduled Ca.~tcs mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduk-d Castes) Or~r 1950. At the election he defeated respondent No. 1 Y.'ho thereupon filed an election petition under s. 81 of the Representation of tho People Act 1951. The contention in the petirion , ... ,ts that the appellant \Vas not a Hindu but a Christian and therefore not qualified to be a c.andidatc from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The High Court held on the fact> that the appellant had become a Christian in 1949 and his later rc-con- vt:r~ion to Hindui:-.n1 remained unproved. In appeal to this Court, HELD : (i) On the facts the High Court ri~htly came to the con- clusion that the. appellant was converted lo Christianity in 1949. On his conversion the ;:1ppc\lant lost the caste to which he originally belonged bcc.1u..,c the Christian religion doc~ not rc..:ognisc c11stc. [264 F-G] (ii) The evidence produced by the appellant established that at least by 1967 when the General Election took place he was again 'professing' th~ Hindu Religion so that he v•as not disqu~1lified under para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. The word 'Profess' in that para means an open declaration or pr;1cticc by a person of the religion in question. (~63 F.GJ P1111jab Rao v. D. I'. Mesliram & Ors. [1965] 1 S.C.R. 849, 859, applied. Karwade V, Sluunbhakar, I.l .. R. 1959 nom. 229, rcfetred to. (ii) Ho\\·ever mere reconversion to Hinduism docs not enable a person to revert to his previous caste. t-:vcn if it be as~umed that a reconvert can n:..,un1c membership of his previous c11stc, a point on ,,·hici1 0pinion is not cxpres~cd. this can happen onlv if th~ caste as supreme judge of its inte- rests accepts him again as a full member. Jn the present case the appellant had not given evidence to ·satisfy th.is rcquircn1ent, and therefore his elec- tion fron1 a Schl'<luled Ca~tc constituency could not be upheld. 1268 D-E, 269 D-EJ A B c D r: F G (;. A1ichael v. Mr. S. V£·11kc.tes1varan, Additional Secretary to Go1•ern- 111ent P11hlic (Elections) /)epart1ncnt. A1adras, A.LR. 1952 Mad. 474, IJ. Shran1su11dc.'r v. Shankar Dea Vrdafa11kar & Ors .. A.LR. 1960 Mys, 27. Clia11i1rbl11r Virlui/d(Ar Ja.rani v. AJorcshwar l'arashra1n & Orr., [19541 S.C:.R. 81-f, Ad111i11istrc:tf)r-Ce11eral of Madras v. A11a11dachari & Ors .. l.L.R. 9 ~f:id. 466, Gun1<;at11i 1\Jadar v. /rulappa Ko11ar (died) and Ors., 67 f\1.L.J. Rep. 389, Airs. Agnl's Dororhy Vrnna11i v. A1r. Bryant Da\·id ll Vmna11i, A.J.R. 1943 Vol. 30 Lah. 51 and Goo11a D11rgaproscda Rao ,;Jia.i: J'edda Babu and A nr. v. Gaona Sudarsanas11·an1i and 28 Ors .. 1.1. ... R. 1940 ~fad. 653, applied. ' ~ • • RAJAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.) 25:0 A [General qu·.%tion whether membership of a caste can be acquired by conversion or reconversion to Hinduisn1 left open.] [267 F~G] B c D E F G H CIVIL APPELLATE J URJSDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 1553 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1967. A. K. Sen, S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for the appellant. Sarjoo Prasad, S. Balakrishnan and S. S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellant, S. Rajagopal, the first respon· dent C. M. Annugam, and the other three respondents all flled nominations for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mysore in the last General Elections held in 1967. The nomi- nation papers were scrutinised on 21st January, 1967, when res· pondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") raised an objection against the nomination of the appellant on the ground that the nominations were in respect of a seat reserved for a member of a Scheduled Caste, and the appellant was not an Adi Dravida Hindu, but an Indian Christian, so that he was disqualified to stand as a candidate for this reserved seat. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and accepted the nomina· tion paper of the appellant. Respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.