# A. Raja v. D. Kumar

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 629
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2023
- **Bench:** Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Augustine George Masih
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-raja-v-d-kumar-38693
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Whether the Appellant belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste in the
State of Kerala and is covered by the 1950 Order insofar as it relates
to the State of Kerala; whether the Appellant had still retained the
Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when
he contested from the Devikulam Assembly Constituency for
Legislative Assembly of Kerala.
Headnotes†
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.116-A and s.100(1)(a)
and (d)(i) - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 -
Part VIII of the Schedule - Validity of election - Appellant
filed his nomination papers declaring therein that he belongs
to the Hindu Parayan caste as per Caste Certificate from a
Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes - Appellant
was elected - Election of the Appellant was challenged - The
ground of challenge laid therein was that the Appellant's
paternal grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kerala
and since the Appellant's grandparents on the paternal side
were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and
their successors were not entitled to claim that they belonged
to 'Hindu Parayan' of Kerala State - Further, it was contended
that the Appellant was a Christian and not entitled to contest
from a Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes - High
Court declared the election of the Appellant void - Correctness:
Held: The twin conditions needing to be satisfied would be (i) being
of the Hindu Parayan caste, and; (ii) being, himself/herself or
through one's ancestors, permanent resident of the State of Kerala
as on the date of the 1950 Order - Upon fulfilment of both these
conditions, a person can claim a legal right to derive any benefits
* Author
1810
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
available to Hindu Parayan caste in the State of Kerala - In the
instant case, fulfilment of the same would enable the Appellant
to become eligible to contest from the Constituency reserved for
the Scheduled Castes - There is no dispute on the factum that,
originally, the grandparents of the Appellant belonged to the Hindu
Parayan caste in the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin having
migrated from the State of Tamil Nadu but prior to 1950 - In this
regard, there is sufficient evidence available on the record - As
far as contention that appellant is Christian is concerned, mere
observance/performance of a ritual of/associated with any religion
does not ipso facto and necessarily mean that the person 'professes'
that religion - That is why the term used in the 1950 Order is
'professes', signifying that a person although born in a particular
religion can profess another religion, inter alia, by practicing the
rituals of that other religion as the basic tenets of his beliefs and
lifestyle - Adherence merely to some ritual of another religion
would not tantamount to giving-up the original religion, unless
the person concerned makes such belief explicit - From the
evidence available, it is not possible to hold that the Appellant
'professes' Christianity - The evidence adduced from the side of
the Appellant would reveal that the Caste Certificate(s) issued in
his favour by the Competent Authority till date hold the field - The
Appellant's Caste Certificate has not been interfered with, either
by the Impugned Judgment or by the authority(ies) concerned -
High Court erred by shifting the burden of proof on the Appellant
to prove in the negative the allegations - Further, even the entries
in the Register are not conclusively established in the sense that
they relate to the Appellant or his family members - Apropos
this, the High Court has noticed many over-writings, edits and
deletions re the purported names of the Appellant and his parents
as alleged to have appeared in the Register - This has prompted
the High Court to note that 'fabrication and correction' were made
to the entry(ies) in the Register(s) - The High Court, on the whole,
accepted whatever was presented by the Respondent and in such
approach, disregarded and ignored the mate

## Text

_Characters 0–39,972 of 100,840. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1809 : 2025 INSC 629
A. Raja
v.
D. Kumar
(Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2023)
06 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and
Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellant belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste in the
State of Kerala and is covered by the 1950 Order insofar as it relates
to the State of Kerala; whether the Appellant had still retained the
Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when
he contested from the Devikulam Assembly Constituency for
Legislative Assembly of Kerala.
Headnotes†
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.116-A and s.100(1)(a)
and (d)(i) - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 -
Part VIII of the Schedule - Validity of election - Appellant
filed his nomination papers declaring therein that he belongs
to the Hindu Parayan caste as per Caste Certificate from a
Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes - Appellant
was elected - Election of the Appellant was challenged - The
ground of challenge laid therein was that the Appellant's
paternal grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kerala
and since the Appellant's grandparents on the paternal side
were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and
their successors were not entitled to claim that they belonged
to 'Hindu Parayan' of Kerala State - Further, it was contended
that the Appellant was a Christian and not entitled to contest
from a Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes - High
Court declared the election of the Appellant void - Correctness:
Held: The twin conditions needing to be satisfied would be (i) being
of the Hindu Parayan caste, and; (ii) being, himself/herself or
through one's ancestors, permanent resident of the State of Kerala
as on the date of the 1950 Order - Upon fulfilment of both these
conditions, a person can claim a legal right to derive any benefits
* Author
1810
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
available to Hindu Parayan caste in the State of Kerala - In the
instant case, fulfilment of the same would enable the Appellant
to become eligible to contest from the Constituency reserved for
the Scheduled Castes - There is no dispute on the factum that,
originally, the grandparents of the Appellant belonged to the Hindu
Parayan caste in the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin having
migrated from the State of Tamil Nadu but prior to 1950 - In this
regard, there is sufficient evidence available on the record - As
far as contention that appellant is Christian is concerned, mere
observance/performance of a ritual of/associated with any religion
does not ipso facto and necessarily mean that the person 'professes'
that religion - That is why the term used in the 1950 Order is
'professes', signifying that a person although born in a particular
religion can profess another religion, inter alia, by practicing the
rituals of that other religion as the basic tenets of his beliefs and
lifestyle - Adherence merely to some ritual of another religion
would not tantamount to giving-up the original religion, unless
the person concerned makes such belief explicit - From the
evidence available, it is not possible to hold that the Appellant
'professes' Christianity - The evidence adduced from the side of
the Appellant would reveal that the Caste Certificate(s) issued in
his favour by the Competent Authority till date hold the field - The
Appellant's Caste Certificate has not been interfered with, either
by the Impugned Judgment or by the authority(ies) concerned -
High Court erred by shifting the burden of proof on the Appellant
to prove in the negative the allegations - Further, even the entries
in the Register are not conclusively established in the sense that
they relate to the Appellant or his family members - Apropos
this, the High Court has noticed many over-writings, edits and
deletions re the purported names of the Appellant and his parents
as alleged to have appeared in the Register - This has prompted
the High Court to note that 'fabrication and correction' were made
to the entry(ies) in the Register(s) - The High Court, on the whole,
accepted whatever was presented by the Respondent and in such
approach, disregarded and ignored the material lacuna in the
pleadings of the Election Petition as also the evidence brought in
by the Respondent - Election Petitioner is obligated to plead and
prove his case beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant retained the
Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when
he contested from the constituency - Impugned judgment of the
High Court is set aside - Election petition dismissed - Appellant
entitled to all consequential benefits as a Member of the Legislative
Assembly. [Paras 30, 34, 36, 50, 57, 58, 59]
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1811
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
Election Laws - Challenge to the caste certificate in election
petition - Position of law:
Held: 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
guidelines, as modified in Dayaram, shall be followed. [Para 64]
Case Law Cited
Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union
of India [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 714 : (1994) 5 SCC 244; Punjabrao v.
D. P. Meshram [1965] 1 SCR 849 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 76;
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura
[1973] 1 SCR 533 : (1972) 2 SCC 442; Supreme Court Bar Assn. v.
Union of India [1998] 2 SCR 795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409; State of
A.P. v. Abdul Khader [1962] 1 SCR 737 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC
149; Ghaurul Hasan v. State of Rajasthan [1962] 1 SCR 772 :
1961 SCC OnLine SC 3; Akbar Khan Alam Khan v. Union of India
[1962] 1 SCR 779 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 4 - followed.
M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu [2010] 11 SCR 38 : (2010) 9 SCC
712; J.Chandrasekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao [1992] Supp. 3
SCR 786 : (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 229 - relied on.
Puducherry SC People Welfare Assn. v. UT of Pondicherry [2014]
13 SCR 1087 : (2014) 9 SCC 236; Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v.
Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe [1995] Supp. 2 SCR 186 : (1995) 5
SCC 347; Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C. P. Joshi [2011] 2 SCR
216 : (2011) 11 SCC 786; Goka Ramalingam v. Boddu Abraham
[1969] 2 SCR 992 : (1969) 1 SCC 24; Virender Nath Gautam v.
Satpal Singh [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 413 : (2007) 3 SCC 617; Hari
Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 38 : (2001)
8 SCC 233; Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary [2003] Supp. 2 SCR
743 : (2003) 8 SCC 204; K. P. Manu v. Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate [2015] 3 SCR 243 : (2015)
4 SCC 1; Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development [1994]
Supp. 3 SCR 50 : (1994) 6 SCC 241; Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham
[2011] 15 SCR 1092 : (2012) 1 SCC 333; Food Corporation of
India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira [2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8
SCC 670; Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v.
State of Maharashtra [2023] 3 SCR 1100 : (2023) 16 SCC 415;
Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras [1953] 1 SCR 677 : (1953) 1
1812
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCC 492; B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal [2011] 3 SCR 932 :
(2011) 4 SCC 266; Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR 765 : (2017) 14 SCC 663; DDA v. Virender Lal
Bahri [2019] 4 SCR 469 : (2020) 15 SCC 328; State of Bombay v.
Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [1960] 2 SCR 866 : 1960 SCC OnLine
SC 44; U.P.SEB v. Hari Shankar Jain [1979] 1 SCR 355 : (1978)
4 SCC 16; Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Limited v. CCE [1990] 2
SCR 797 : (1990) 3 SCC 447; Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti
Gangadhara Swamy [2005] 1 SCR 848 : (2005) 2 SCC 244;
Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur [1988] Supp. 2 SCR
929 : (1989) 1 SCC 101; State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals
Ltd. [1991] 3 SCR 64 : (1991) 4 SCC 139; A-One Granites v.
State of U.P. [2001] 1 SCR 1085 : (2001) 3 SCC 537; Bhagwati
Prasad Dixit v. Rajeev Gandhi [1986] 2 SCR 823 : (1986) 4 SCC
78; Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST [2005] Supp. 4
SCR 87 : (2005) 8 SCC 283; Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu
and Kashmir National Conference [2023] 12 SCR 68 : 2023 INSC
804 - referred to.
Sapna Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1992 SCC OnLine Ker
233 - referred to.
List of Acts
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Schedule to the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; Kerala (Schedule
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community
Certificates Act, 1996; Evidence Act, 1872; Constitution of India;
Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of
Issue of Community Certificates Rules, 2002; States Reorganization
Act, 1956; Citizenship Act, 1955.
List of Keywords
Hindu Parayan caste; Election; Constituency reserved for the
Scheduled Castes; Nomination papers; Scheduled Caste; Part
VIII of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,
1950; Baptized; Ancestors permanent resident of the State of
Kerala; Mere observance/performance of a ritual; Professes; Born
in a particular religion can profess another religion; Christianity;
Caste Certificate; Shifting the burden of proof; Overwritings, edits
and deletions in Register; Fabrication and correction; Plead and
prove beyond reasonable doubt.; Election petition.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1813
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2023 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in EP No. 11 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
V. Giri, T. Krishnanunni, N Raghuraj, Sr. Advs., Prakash, Joice
George, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Jishnu M L, Mrs. Priyanka Prakash,
Anoop R, Rahul Narang.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Narendra Hooda, Sr. Adv., Aljo K. Joseph, Anurag Kumar,
Ms. Meenakshi, Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Dushyant Chaudhary,
Santosh Kumar Kolkonda, Abhinav P Dhanodkar, Saket Jee,
Ranjan Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
This is an appeal preferred under Section 116-A1 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against
the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2023 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Impugned Judgment')2 passed by the High Court of Kerala
at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), in
Election Petition No.11 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Election Petition'), filed by the Respondent (hereinafter also
referred to as the 'Election Petitioner'), declaring the election of the
Appellant to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala from the Devikulam
1
'116-A. Appeals to Supreme Court.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on any question (whether of law or fact) from
every order made by a High Court under Section 98 or Section 99.
(2) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the
order of the High Court under Section 98 or Section 99:
Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days
if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.'
2
2023:KER:16955; 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1643; (2023) 2 KLT 716; (2023) 2 KLJ 1.
1814
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Legislative Assembly Constituency 088 in Idukki District, Kerala,
which is reserved for the Scheduled Castes, as void under Section
100(1)(a) and (d)(i)3 of the Act.
FACTUAL PRISM:
2.
General Elections to the Devikulam Assembly Constituency for
membership of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala were to be
conducted in 2021. The Appellant filed his nomination papers before
the Returning Officer on 17.03.2021 declaring therein that he belongs
to the Hindu Parayan caste as per Caste Certificate dated 09.03.2021
issued by the Tehsildar, Devikulam. The said caste has been declared
as a Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Kerala in Part VIII
of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as the '1950 Order') issued on 10.08.1950 by
Hon'ble the President of India. Oral objections before the Returning
Officer were raised by the Respondent contending that the Appellant
was not a member of the Scheduled Castes from Kerala and
instead, he was a Christian. The Returning Officer, after examining
the nomination papers of the Appellant rejected the objections and
accepted the nomination papers. Polling in the Constituency took
place on 06.04.2021 and after counting, the result of the election was
declared on 02.05.2021. The Appellant secured 59,049 votes and was
declared elected by a margin of 7848 votes over the Respondentdefeated candidate who had secured 51,201 votes.
3.
The election of the Appellant was challenged by the Respondent
in Election Petition No.11 of 2021 before the High Court. The
3
'100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
High Court is of opinion-
(a)
that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be
chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act,
1963 (20 of 1963); or
(b)
...
(c)
...
(d)
that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially
affected-
(i)
by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii)
...
(iii)
...
(iv)
...
the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.'
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1815
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
ground of challenge laid therein was that the Appellant's paternal
grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kerala in 1951.
They were of the 'Hindu Parayan' caste in the State of Tamil Nadu.
'Parayan' is included in the list of Scheduled Castes of both States
viz. Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the 1950 Order, as originally brought
into force. Since the Appellant's grandparents on the paternal side
were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and their
successors were not entitled to claim that they belonged to 'Hindu
Parayan' of Kerala State. It was averred that hence, the Appellant is
not entitled to contest from a Constituency reserved for candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes from Kerala. The Appellant was
born on 17.10.1984 to Mr Antony and Mrs Esther. Mr Antony and
Ms Esther, it was asserted, were Christians baptized by the CSI's4
Church in Kundala Estate by a pastor named Ebenezer Mani in the
year 1982. The Appellant, born in 1984, also was baptized by the
said Ebenezer Mani. Thus, the Appellant was a Christian and not
entitled to contest from a Constituency reserved for the Scheduled
Castes.
4.
The High Court took up the Election Petition. It framed issues,
examined witnesses, admitted documents and on consideration of
the oral testimony and documentary evidence in trial proceeded to
declare the election of the Appellant void, by way of the Impugned
Judgment. The issues remaining5 before the High Court and decided
through the Impugned Judgment are as under:
'(I) Whether the returned candidate is a person belonging
to Scheduled Caste among Hindus in the State of Kerala?
(II) Whether the acceptance of nomination of returned
candidate is proper?
(III) Whether the election of returned candidate is liable
to be set aside?
(IV) Reliefs and cost.'
4
Church of South India.
5
By its Order dated 10.03.2022, the High Court had already rejected the Appellant's contentions that
(a) the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action, and; (b) the Election Petition was barred by
limitation.
1816
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5.
This Court granted a conditional stay of the Impugned Judgment by
Order dated 28.04.20236, which was continued on different dates
subsequently. Vide Order dated 15.05.2024, this Court directed that
the interim relief would '... continue till the final disposal of this Appeal.'
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS:
6.
Learned senior counsel Mr. V. Giri, for the Appellant, submitted that
the paternal grandparents of the Appellant started residing in the
erstwhile State of Travancore (which subsequently became part
of the State of Kerala) much prior to 1950 and that the paternal
grandmother and grandfather of the Appellant came to Kundala
Estate in Munnar with their respective families in 1940s before their
marriage and both families started residing in Munnar. From then
onwards, both families have been residents of Munnar. Antony, the
Appellant's father, was born in 1952 at Kundala Estate, Devikulam,
Munnar. It was submitted that the Appellant's paternal grandmother
was an employee of Kannan Devan Hills Plantation in Munnar in
the year 1949, as per Certificate dated 17.11.2021 issued by the
Deputy General Manager, Kannan Devan Hills Plantation at Munnar.
7.
Further, learned senior counsel submitted that the burden to prove
that the Appellant's family had migrated to Travancore only after 1950
is entirely upon the Election Petitioner and relied on paragraph no.82
of M. Chandra v M. Thangamuthu, (2010) 9 SCC 712, where this
Court held that the burden of proof is on the Election Petitioner to
prove the charges he alleges beyond reasonable doubt.
8.
It was canvassed that the High Court took the view that even though
the ancestors of the Appellant started residing in Travancore before
1950, their residence in Travancore can be only for the purpose of
employment and they cannot be treated as permanent residents.
6
'...
Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a conditional stay of the impugned judgment and order to the
following extent:
(i)
The appellant shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly;
(ii)
The appellant shall, however, not be entitled to vote on any motion in the Legislative Assembly.
He shall also not be entitled to vote in his capacity as a Member of the Legislative Assembly on
any other matter;
(iii)
The appellant shall not be entitled to receive any allowance or monetary benefits in any other form
which is admissible to a Member of the Legislative Assembly.
...'
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1817
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
This finding is assailed on the ground that this was neither pleaded,
nor proved by the respondent.
9.
It was further canvassed that the 1950 Order was subsequently
amended in 1956 pursuant to the passing of the States Re-organization
Act, 1956. As per the direction in the States Re-Organization Act,
1956 amendments were brought about to the 1950 Order in 1956
by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as the '1956 Order'). The date on which the residence
of the Appellant's grandparents changed to the State of Kerala
on 01.11.1956, being the date when the then State of Travancore
became part of the State of Kerala. It was the case in the Election
Petition that the grandparents of the Appellant migrated to Kerala in
1951. If that be so, the Appellant's grandparents would be, without
any doubt, 'Hindu Parayan' of Kerala in 1956 as the State of Kerala,
upon merger, was formed on 01.11.1956. The 1950 Order was
again amended in 1976 by the Parliament and the date on which
the 'residence' is to be reckoned shifted to 01.05.1976. Even in the
Impugned Judgment, the High Court finds that the family of the
Appellant started permanently residing in Kerala from 1970. In that
case also, it was urged, the Appellant is to be treated as a 'Hindu
Parayan' of Kerala.
10. Learned senior counsel relied on paragraph no.13 of Puducherry
SC People Welfare Assn. v UT of Pondicherry, (2014) 9 SCC 236
which states ' ... Once Presidential Order has been issued under
Article 341(1) or Article 342(1), any amendment in the Presidential
Order can only be made by Parliament by law as provided in Article
341(2) or Article 342(2), as the case may be, and in no other manner.
The interpretation of "resident" in the Presidential Order as "of origin"
amounts to altering the Presidential Order.' It was stated that the
term 'resident' therefore, assumes importance in the context. The
evidence on record would show that the ancestors of the Appellant
were residents of Kundala Estate in Munnar, a part of the erstwhile
Travancore, before 10.08.1950, the date on which the 1950 Order
came into force.
11. It was also argued that the High Court went beyond the pleadings
of the parties and the evidence adduced and made out a third case,
taking a view that even though the Appellant's ancestors started
residing in Travancore before 1950, their residence in Travancore
1818
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
can be only for the purpose of employment and they cannot be
treated as permanent residents. Such case was neither pleaded, nor
proved by the respondent. Even when the Appellant was examined
as RW2, not even a single suggestion was put to him in this regard.
12. Learned senior counsel also contended that there was no challenge
to the Caste Certificate issued in the Appellant's favour. If the
Respondent's case is that the Appellant's Caste Certificate is not
properly issued, it is for him to prove that the Caste Certificate
issued is invalid and improper. Reliance in this context was placed
on paragraph no.85 of M. Chandra (supra), where it was observed:
'There is nothing on record to show that the community certificate
was issued illegally or in contravention of the valid procedure. The
election petitioner should have examined the person in charge while
the certificate was being issued to bring to light to alleged malpractice
in issuance of the said Certificate. The validity of the issuance of
the community certificate is presumed unless shown otherwise by
Respondent 1, who clearly failed to do so. ...'7 Hence, in the case
at hand, the Respondent, who has not objected to acceptance of
the Caste Certificate by the Returning Officer, though he makes a
vague averment that he had orally objected to the acceptance of
the Caste Certificate, which is disputed as being factually incorrect,
has not chosen to examine either the Competent Authority, which
issued the Caste Certificate, nor has he examined the Returning
Officer to prove otherwise.
13. It was contended that the case of the Respondent is that in the year
1982, Pastor Ebenezer Mani baptized the father and mother of the
Appellant in CSI Church and thus, they became Christians in 1982.
Thereafter in 1984, the Appellant was born and the Respondent
alleges that the Appellant was also baptized by the said Ebenezer
Mani. Ebenezer Mani was examined as PW8, as a witness of the
Respondent, and deposed that he was born in 1968, which means
that he was only about 14 years of age in 1982, the year when he,
according to the Respondent, had allegedly baptized the parents
of the Appellant. He further deposed that he became an Evangelist
at the age of 24 and that an Evangelist cannot perform the rite of
baptism. Even in the examination-in-chief of PW8, there was no
attempt on the side of the Respondent to prove that Ebenezer Mani
7
Emphasis added by the Appellant.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1819
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
was instrumental in baptizing the Appellant's father and mother as
also the Appellant.
14. Learned senior counsel contended that a totally new case was
attempted to be developed while examining PW9, on 17.10.2022, on
the strength of some alleged tampering in a Baptism Register and
Family Register produced before the High Court by Church authorities.
The case attempted to be projected was that in 1992, the Appellant's
father, mother and their children (including the Appellant) together
converted to Christianity. It is submitted that entries in the so-called
Baptism Register are not proved. In fact, since the said Baptism
Register from 1997 to 2008 was marked through PW9, who admittedly
joined as a pastor in the CSI Church concerned only in 2013, he is
incompetent to prove any of the entries. The person who conducted
the baptism ceremony was not identified or examined. Anybody
knowing the handwriting and signature of the person/s who made
those entries was also not examined. Above all, the dates of birth of
the persons so baptized shown in the afore-mentioned Registers do
not tally with the actual dates of birth of the Appellant's father, mother
and their children, including the Appellant, as per official records.
15. It was further argued that as per Section 818 of the Act, dealing with
the pleadings in an Election Petition, the petitioner should plead
specifically, the ground(s) on which he claims the election is to be
set aside, relying on the following decisions of this Court in support
of above said proposition: paragraph no.33 of Gajanan Krishnaji
Bapat v Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, (1995) 5 SCC 347; paragraph
no.79 of M. Chandra (supra), and; paragraph no.19 of Kalyan Singh
Chouhan v C. P. Joshi, (2011) 11 SCC 786.
16. Learned senior counsel stressed that the specific case pleaded in the
Election Petition was that the ancestors of the Appellant migrated to
8
'81. Presentation of petitions.-(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be
presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to
the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier
than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at
the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to
which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.
(2) [Omitted]
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature
to be a true copy of the petition.'
1820
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Kerala in 1951. Without even a whisper in the Election Petition or in
the evidence adduced by the Respondent that the ancestors came for
employment to Kerala, a completely new case was developed after
the period of limitation to file an Election Petition that the Appellant's
ancestors came for employment to Kerala. Learned senior counsel
relied on Goka Ramalingam v Boddu Abraham, (1969) 1 SCC 24
and contended that after the period of limitation, a new contention,
changing the whole nature of the case, can neither be raised nor
pressed into service.
17. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant, further argued that the
instant appeal be allowed, pointing out that in the Impugned Judgment,
the High Court held that the burden to prove that the Appellant is
a member of the Scheduled Castes within the State of Kerala and
that his family had migrated prior to 1950 was entirely cast upon
the Appellant, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law in
M. Chandra (supra). Emphasis was placed particularly on paragraphs
no.81 & 82 thereof.
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS:
18. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Narender Hooda, for the Respondent
submitted that the burden of proving the authenticity of the Caste
Certificate was fully on the Appellant as per Section 10 of the Kerala
(Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of
Community Certificates Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Kerala Act'), which reads as under:
'10. Burden of proof:-
Where an application is made to the Competent Authority
under Section 4 for the issue of a community certificate
in respect of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or in
any enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority, the
Expert Agency, or the Scrutiny Committee or in any trial
or offence under this Act, the burden of proving that he
belongs to such Caste or Tribe shall be on the claimant.'9
19. Learned senior counsel laid emphasis on 'or in any trial' to support
the proposition that an Election Petition would fall within the ambit
9
Emphasis added by the Respondent.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1821
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
of the burden contemplated under Section 10 of the Kerala Act. It
was argued that in the present case, it was rightly understood by
all parties, based on the pleadings and the issues formulated by the
High Court and evidence adduced, that the challenge was made to
the Caste Certificate produced by the Appellant before the Returning
Officer issued by the Competent Authority under the Kerala Act.
The burden of proving the authenticity of the Caste Certificate was
fully on the Appellant which he failed to discharge. It was urged that
the Election Petitioner/Respondent had pleaded material facts and
particulars, as laid down in Virender Nath Gautam v Satpal Singh,
(2007) 3 SCC 617.
20. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Caste Certificate issued
to a returned candidate can be challenged in an Election Petition
and he relied on Hari Shanker Jain v Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8
SCC 233 and Punit Rai v Dinesh Chaudhary, (2003) 8 SCC 204.
21. It was submitted that a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in Action
Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v Union
of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244 has interpreted the word 'Resident' as
used in the 1950 Order to mean 'permanent resident'.
22. It was further argued by learned senior counsel that the marriage of
the Appellant was also conducted according to Christian rituals and
customs. None of the Hindu rituals or customs were followed during
the marriage function of the Appellant. Thus, when these are the
special facts within the knowledge of the Appellant, the burden shifts
to the Appellant, and it becomes his duty to explain such facts within
his knowledge. It was canvassed that simple denial of material facts
is not sufficient discharge of the burden under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act'),
nor rebuts the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
23. Learned senior counsel further contended that a person claiming the
status of a Schedule Caste in a particular State has to demonstrate
his/his ancestors' permanent residence in that particular State
on the date of the Presidential Order. In India, a Hindu inherits
his caste from his father. In the instant case, the Appellant would
inherit his caste from his father i.e., Mr. Anthony, who, in turn, would
get his caste from his father Lachmanan. To claim the benefit of
reservation for Schedule Castes in relation to the State of Kerala,
the Appellant had to establish that his grandfather Lachmanan was
1822
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a permanent resident of Kerala much prior to the 1950 Order as per
Action Committee (supra). The High Court in paragraph no.17 of
the Impugned Judgment has recorded a categorical finding of fact,
after meticulous examination of the entire documentary as well as
oral evidence before it, that the Appellant's grandfather was not a
permanent resident of the State of Kerala before the 1950 Order.
24. It was further argued that when the Appellant himself admitted the
fact of migration of his grandparents from Tamil Nadu to Kerala, it
was his responsibility to prove that his grandparents migrated before
independence to the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin from
Tamil Nadu and were permanent residents of Travancore-Cochin on
10.08.1950 i.e., the date the Presidential Order was issued.
25. It was submitted that since the Appellant was a minor when he
converted, the doctrine of eclipse followed him till he became a major.
The Appellant ought to have converted to Hinduism by following any
custom/ritual which was otherwise prescribed to be followed by the
community at large. The case of the Appellant that he never converted
to Christianity cannot be accepted since it was proved that the parents
converted to Christianity. The minor has no right to claim any religion
or caste so long as the parents have converted to another religion
along with the family. This being the factual position, it would be the
Appellant's responsibility to prove that he had come out of the eclipse
by explaining the facts in his personal knowledge under Section 106
of the Evidence Act. As long as the Respondent had discharged his
initial burden of proving the allegation against the Appellant, unless
the presumption is rebutted, under Section 114 of the Evidence
Act, it would be presumed that the circumstances and evidence are
conclusive qua the allegations made in the Election Petition.
26. Learned senior counsel in support of his proposition apropos the
doctrine of eclipse relied on K. P. Manu v Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate, (2015) 4 SCC 1.
27. Learned senior counsel summed up his arguments and contended
that even though it is not mandatory under the Kerala Act to obtain
a certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, but if any challenge to
such Caste Certificate comes before any enquiry conducted by the
Competent Authority, the Expert Agency, or the Scrutiny Committee
or in any trial or offence under the Kerala Act, the burden will be
on the claimant (in this case, the Appellant herein) to prove that
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1823
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
he belongs to such caste or tribe. It was urged that the appeal be
dismissed, and the Impugned Judgment be upheld.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
28. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length
and bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions
assiduously advanced at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the
judgment impugned warrants interference.
29. Article 341 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Constitution') reads as under:
'341. Scheduled Castes.-(1) The President may with
respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is
a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by
public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or
parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which
shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to
be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union
territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued
under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group
within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied
by any subsequent notification.'
30. In exercise of power conferred under Article 341(1) of the Constitution,
Hon'ble the President issued the 1950 Order. The central issue in
the entire controversy is whether the Appellant belongs to the Hindu
Parayan caste in the State of Kerala and is covered by the 1950
Order insofar as it relates to the State of Kerala. The twin conditions
needing to be satisfied would be (i) being of the Hindu Parayan
caste, and; (ii) being, himself/herself or through one's ancestors,
permanent resident of the State of Kerala as on the date of the 1950
Order. Upon fulfilment of both these conditions, a person can claim
a legal right to derive any benefits available to Hindu Parayan caste
in the State of Kerala. In the instant case, fulfilment of the same
would enable the Appellant to become eligible to contest from the
Devikulam Legislative Assembly Constituency 088 in Idukki District,
Kerala, reserved for the Scheduled Castes.
1824
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
31. There is no dispute on the factum that, originally, the grandparents of
the Appellant belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste in the erstwhile
State of Travancore-Cochin having migrated from the State of Tamil
Nadu but prior to 1950. In this regard, there is sufficient evidence
available on the record. The next relevant question which would
arise would be as to whether the Appellant had still retained the
Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when he
contested from the Devikulam Legislative Assembly Constituency?
32. This is hotly contested between the parties. The Respondent-Election
Petitioner contends that the Appellant's parents had converted to
Christianity and the entire family, including the Appellant, were
baptized. In this regard, certain registers of the CSI Church were
produced before the High Court. However, from the evidence, it
is also apparent that the entries in such registers were not very
specific, inasmuch as the name of the Appellant was not mentioned
and other details with regard to the age of his siblings also did not
match. Even some names of the siblings were different. Were this
an ordinary civil suit at trial, we could have possibly applied the
'preponderance of probabilities' yardstick, which may have resulted
in some leeway and latitude in favour of the Respondent and against
the Appellant. However, as per the dicta in J. Chandrasekhara
Rao v V. Jagapathi Rao, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 229 and M. Chandra
(supra), 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. This enunciation of the law has
guided our decision-making.
33. Most importantly, Ebenezer Mani/PW8, from the Respondent's
side, who claimed to have baptized the Appellant and his family,
during evidence, admitted that he was aged 54 years on the date
of deposition, which meant he was aged only 14 years in the year
1982, when he purportedly baptized the Appellant's parents. This
is, clearly, unbelievable and unsustainable.
34. It is relevant to observe that mere observance/performance of a ritual
of/associated with any religion does not ipso facto and necessarily
mean that the person 'professes' that religion. That is why the term
used in the 1950 Order is 'professes', signifying that a person although
born in a particular religion can profess another religion, inter alia,
by practicing the rituals of that other religion as the basic tenets of
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1825
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
his beliefs and lifestyle. Adherence merely to some ritual of another
religion would not tantamount to giving-up the original religion, unless
the person concerned makes such belief explicit. In Sapna Jacob v
State of Kerala, 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 233, a learned Single Judge
of the (Kerala) High Court (as he then was) observed:
'6. ... It may be true that the court cannot test or gauge the
sincerity of religious belief; or where there is no question of
the genuineness of a person's belief in a certain religion,
the court cannot measure its depth or determine whether it
is an intelligent conviction or ignorant and superficial fancy.
But a court can find the true intention of men lying behind
their acts and can certainly find from the circumstances
of a case whether a pretended conversion was really a
means to some further end. ...'
(emphasis supplied)10
35. The term 'professes' has been examined by five of our learned
predecessors in Punjabrao v D. P. Meshram, 1964 SCC OnLine
SC 76 in like background:
'13. What clause (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950 contemplates is that for a person to
be treated as one belonging to a Scheduled Caste within
the meaning of that Order, he must be one who professes
either Hindu or Sikh religion. The High Court, following its
earlier decision in Karwadi v. Shambharkar [AIR 1958 Bom
296] has said that the meaning of the phrase "professes
a religion" in the aforementioned provision is "to enter
publicly into a religions state" and that for this purpose
a mere declaration by a person that he has ceased to
belong to a particular religion and embraced another
religion would not be sufficient. The meanings of the word
"profess" have been given thus in Webster's New World
Dictionary:"to avow publicly; to make an open declaration
of ... to declare one's belief in : as, to profess Christ. To
accept into a religious order".