Caste/Community Certificate Cannot Be Assailed In Election Petition; Court Holds Election Valid

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih heard Civil Appeal No.2758 of 2023 under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against a Kerala High Court judgment which had declared an MLA's election void on the ground that he was not a member of the Scheduled Castes of Kerala. The appeal raised the question whether the returned candidate belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste as a member of the Hindu religion for the purposes of the Presidential Order of 1950 and whether a caste/community certificate could be challenged in an election petition.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 20 March 2023 and held that the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed. The Court held that a duly issued caste/community certificate was amenable to challenge only under the statutory scheme established by the concerned State/Union Territory and not in an election petition, unless the statute expressly permitted such a challenge. The Court emphasised that election petitions had to be treated with the rigour of criminal-like proof: "Election Petitions, including those wherein no allegations of corrupt practices are levelled, have to be treated akin to criminal proceedings and the Election Petitioner has to prove the charges levelled beyond reasonable doubt." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A duly issued Caste/Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition. In case no statute governing the field in a State/Union Territory is operative, the Madhuri Patil (supra) guidelines, as modified in Dayaram (supra), shall be followed." Applying these principles, the Court found that the High Court had erred in shifting the burden onto the returned candidate and in accepting weak documentary and oral material relied upon by the Election Petitioner.

Background The dispute arose after the general election to the Devikulam Assembly Constituency, Kerala, in 2021. The returned candidate filed nomination papers declaring himself as belonging to the Hindu Parayan caste and produced a caste certificate dated 9 March 2021 issued by the Tehsildar, Devikulam. The defeated candidate filed an Election Petition in the High Court alleging that the returned candidate's paternal grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu and were not permanent residents of Kerala on the date of the 1950 Presidential Order; it was further alleged that the family had converted to Christianity and that baptisms and church registers supported that assertion. The Returning Officer had rejected oral objections and accepted the nomination; the appellant won the election by a margin of 7,848 votes.

The High Court framed issues on caste status, validity of acceptance of nomination and whether the election should be set aside. It examined church registers and witnesses and held the election void under Sections 100(1)(a) and (d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised the evidence and procedural context. It noted inconsistencies in the church register entries and the testimony of the key witness who purported to have performed baptisms, and it observed that mere performance of certain rituals did not ipso facto establish that a person "professed" another religion. The Court analysed the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 and concluded that Section 10 of that Act — which places the burden of proof on a claimant "in any trial under this Act" — did not extend to an election petition. The Court distinguished and considered precedents including Madhuri Patil, Dayaram and Hari Shanker Jain, and found the view in Sobha Hymavathi Devi to be sub silentio on the statutory scheme. The Court expressly found that "the Appellant, therefore, retained the Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when he contested from the Devikulam Legislative Assembly Constituency." The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside and the Election Petition was dismissed; the appellant was declared entitled to all consequential benefits as an MLA for the period from the date of oath. The Court declined to pass any costs order and directed the Registry to act under Section 116-C(2) of the Act. Earlier interim directions had permitted the appellant to participate in Assembly proceedings but restrained him from voting and from receiving allowances; those directions continued until final disposal.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2758 OF 2023 Case Title: A. Raja v D. Kumar Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): V. Giri, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Narender Hooda, Senior Counsel