Supreme Court Upholds Returned Candidate's Election in Scheduled Caste Constituency. Interpretation of 'Sunri excluding Saha' in Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 Excludes Smaller Caste Group, Not Surname, and Mere Surname Saha Does Not Exclude a Sunri from Scheduled Caste.

Election petition challenging the election of a returned candidate from a reserved Scheduled Caste constituency in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on the ground that the candidate did not belong to a Scheduled Caste.

The respondent (election petitioner) sought to have the appellant's election declared void and himself declared elected. The appellant sought restoration of his election.

The respondent contended that the appellant, though describing himself as Sunri (a Scheduled Caste), was actually a member of the Saha caste, which was excluded under Item 40 of Part 13 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which read 'Sunri excluding Saha'.

The Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition, holding the appellant belonged to the Sunri caste and hence a Scheduled Caste, interpreting Sahas as an independent caste excluded out of abundant caution. The Calcutta High Court reversed, holding that the appellant bore the surname Saha and was thus excluded from the Scheduled Caste, and set aside his election but declined to declare the respondent elected.

Whether Item 40 of Part 13 of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, 'Sunri excluding Saha', excluded only the smaller caste group of Sahas within Sunri or also all Sunris bearing the surname Saha. Whether the respondent/election petitioner had proved that the appellant belonged to the excluded Saha caste group. Whether evidence led in the case could alter the natural interpretation of the statutory order. Whether the election petition's pleading was sufficient to allow the petitioner to contend that the appellant belonged to a smaller caste group within Sunri.

For the appellant/returned candidate: He was a Sunri by caste, which is a Scheduled Caste; the exclusion of 'Saha' referred to a distinct caste group, not to a surname; he did not belong to any excluded group, and mere surname Saha was irrelevant. For the respondent/election petitioner: The appellant was a member of the Saha caste, not a Scheduled Caste; alternatively, Saha was a smaller caste group within Sunri excluded under item 40; and the appellant, bearing the surname Saha, was excluded regardless of sub-caste. The Tribunal's view: Sahas had become an independent caste and were excluded out of abundant caution, so the appellant as a Sunri was not excluded. The High Court's view: 'Saha' in the item referred to Sunris bearing the surname Saha, hence the appellant was excluded.

The words 'Sunri excluding Saha' in Item 40 of Part 13 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, must be interpreted to mean that the Sunri caste is recognized as a Scheduled Caste, but the smaller caste group of Sahas within the Sunri caste is excluded. The term 'Saha' refers to a caste group, not to a surname, because when one thing is excluded from another, both are of the same kind; and since Sunri is a caste, Saha must also be a caste group. Evidence cannot alter the natural interpretation of statutory words, and a method of interpretation dependent on evidence would lead to uncertainty. Mere proof that a person bears the surname Saha does not exclude him from the Sunri Scheduled Caste; the opposing party must prove that he belongs to the excluded Saha caste group.

When a statute says that a thing is to be excluded from another, both things are of the same kind; if one is a caste, the other must be a caste. Evidence cannot alter the natural interpretation of the words in the Order. Surname is irrelevant as a test for applying item 40 unless it is shown that it indicated a smaller caste group of Sunris.

Abhoy Pada Saha filed his nomination for the Khargram Murshidabad reserved constituency, describing himself as a member of the Sunri caste, which is a Scheduled Caste. Sudhir Kumar Mondal objected, but the Returning Officer rejected the objection. In the election, Abhoy Pada Saha secured 16,730 votes and Sudhir Kumar Mondal secured 15,523 votes, and Abhoy was declared elected. Sudhir filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal challenging the election on the ground that Abhoy belonged to the Saha caste and not a Scheduled Caste. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding Abhoy was a Sunri and belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Sudhir appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which reversed the Tribunal's decision, set aside Abhoy's election, but rejected Sudhir's prayer to be declared elected. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court: Abhoy (Civil Appeal No. 931 of 1965) against the setting aside of his election, and Sudhir (Civil Appeal No. 1149 of 1965) against the refusal to declare him elected. The Supreme Court allowed Abhoy's appeal and dismissed Sudhir's appeal, thereby restoring the Election Tribunal's decision and upholding Abhoy's election.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 332, Article 341
• Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950: Part 13, Item 40