Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in March 1972 for the North Nagpur constituency, a seat reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. The second respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an election petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) challenging the election on the ground, inter alia, that the second respondent had ceased to be a Hindu after conversion to Buddhism and was therefore ineligible to contest from a reserved constituency. The High Court dismissed the election petition, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. In the election, nineteen persons filed nomination papers; nine withdrew leaving respondents 2 to 10 and the appellant in the field. One of those who withdrew was the eleventh respondent, Ranjit Meshram. The election results were: second respondent 22,993 votes, appellant 21,135 votes, sixth respondent 16,123 votes, and ninth respondent 2,590 votes. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant concentrated his arguments on respondents 2 and 6, leaving aside respondent 9. Issue 9 related to the validity of the withdrawal of nomination by Ranjit Meshram under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while Issue 10 concerned whether respondents 2 and 4 to 10 were converts to Buddhism and had ceased to be Hindus, making them ineligible to contest from the reserved constituency. The appellant had not objected at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers to the acceptance of nominations of respondents 2, 6, and 9 on the ground that they were not members of the Scheduled Castes. The respondents were well-known figures: respondent 2 was a doctor practising in Nagpur, respondent 6 was an advocate, and respondent 9 was also a doctor. The appellant gave no date, place, or circumstances of the alleged conversion. Evidence showed that respondent 2 was born a Hindu, married according to Hindu rites, and had gone to England on a government scholarship given to members of Scheduled Castes to study medicine. The allegations of conversion relied on the fact that the nieces of respondent 2 were married according to Buddhist rites, the invitation for their marriage was in Buddhist form, respondent 2's name was printed as one of those joining in the invitation, pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and Buddha were garlanded, and a Buddhist Bhiku officiated at the marriage. The Court held that merely from these circumstances it could not be concluded that respondent 2 was a Buddhist. The Court noted that there is very little difference between a wedding according to Buddhist rites and one according to Hindu rites; Buddhist rites are followed even where one party is non-Buddhist, and there was no evidence that the Hindu partner ceases to profess Hinduism thereafter. The names of brothers are often included in wedding invitations under the lead 'With best compliments of' without their permission. The picture of Dr. Ambedkar might have been garlanded because he was held in great veneration by the Scheduled Castes. The Court further observed that when one is born a Hindu, going to a Buddhist temple or a Church or Durga cannot show that he has changed his religion. The fact that Dr. and Mrs. Ambedkar and a large number of people openly got themselves converted to Buddhism did not prove that all members of the Scheduled Castes followed in their footsteps. Religion was described as essentially a highly personal matter, and Hinduism so tolerant and varied that it is difficult to say whether a person is practising or professing Hindu religion or not. In such a matter, the open assertion by an educated member of society about the religion he professes should be given considerable weight over the interested testimony of others based on stray instances. The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's dismissal of the election petition. The election of the second respondent was sustained as he remained eligible as a member of the Scheduled Caste. Consequently, the question whether respondent 6 was disqualified and whether the appellant could be declared elected did not arise.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Scheduled Caste Candidacy and Religious Conversion - Conversion to Buddhism must be proved by clear evidence showing personal change of faith - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The appellant alleged that the returned candidate had converted to Buddhism and thus ceased to be a Hindu, making him ineligible for a reserved Scheduled Caste seat; the Court held that the appellant failed to furnish date, place, or circumstances of conversion and the evidence of Buddhist marriage rites of the candidate's nieces, garlanding of Dr. Ambedkar and Buddha, and a Buddhist Bhiku officiating did not establish the candidate's own conversion. Held that no disqualification was proved and the election petition failed on this ground (Paras 925G-927G, 928A-B). B) Evidence - Failure to Object at Scrutiny - Failure to object to nomination at scrutiny, though not a legal bar, considerably weakens a subsequent challenge to eligibility - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The appellant did not object to the acceptance of the returned candidate's nomination papers at the scrutiny stage despite the parties being well-known in Nagpur and from the Scheduled Caste community; the Court reasoned that this omission undermined the credibility of the allegation of conversion. Held that the omission weakened the challenge but did not legally bar it (Paras 925G-926B). C) Religious Identity - Personal Assertion of Religion - In matters of religion, open assertion by an educated person about the religion he professes should be given considerable weight over interested testimony based on stray instances - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The Court observed that Hinduism is tolerant and its practices varied and eclectic, making it difficult to determine whether a person professes Hinduism; the returned candidate was born a Hindu, married according to Hindu rites, and openly asserted he remained Hindu. Held that the election petition's allegations were not sufficient to prove conversion (Paras 929C-D, 930F-G).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the returned candidate had ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to Buddhism and was therefore ineligible to contest from a reserved Scheduled Caste constituency; whether acceptance of withdrawal of nomination of respondent 11 was valid under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; effect of failure to object to nomination at the time of scrutiny.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Bombay High Court's dismissal of the election petition. The election of the second respondent was sustained; the Court held that no conversion to Buddhism was proved, and the second respondent remained eligible as a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Court found that the appellant failed to give the date, place, or circumstances of the alleged conversion and that the evidence of Buddhist rites at family functions did not establish the second respondent's personal change of faith. Consequently, the question of respondent 6's disqualification and the appellant's prayer to be declared elected did not arise.
Law Points
- Election to reserved Scheduled Caste seat requires candidate to be member of Scheduled Caste
- outward acts of Buddhist rites at family functions do not prove personal conversion
- failure to object at scrutiny of nomination weakens subsequent challenge
- personal assertion of religion by educated person given considerable weight
- Hinduism is tolerant and eclectic making proof of abandonment difficult
