# GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 923
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-12-04
- **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, R. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ganpat-v-returning-officer-ors-6372
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Electio11-Member of Scheduled Caste-Al/egatio11 that relllrned cmu/ic/at1!
hecC1me a convert to B11ddlrism-Proo/.
c
D
E
F
G
In the election to the State Legislative Assembly to fill 11p a seat reserved
for members of . the scheduled castes from· Nagpur, the second respondent was
de_clared elected. The appellant challenged the ele:tion, on the ground, inter
alta, that the second respondent ceased to be a Hindu having been converted to
B11ddhism. The High Court dismissed the election p.>tition.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
JI ELD : (1} The second respondent was a well known Doctor in Nagpur,
.the appellant belonged to Nagpur and they belonged to scheduled castes b~forc
the second respondent's alleged conversion to Buddhism. And yet, the appellant has not giyen the date, the place or the drcumstances under which the
second respondent became a convert "lo Buddhism. Nor did the
appelJant
object at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, that the se1;<>nd
respondent was not a member of the scheduled caste.
[925 U-926 B, F~J
(2} The second respondent was born a Hindu and was married according
to Hindu rites. He went to Enl)land on a Government scholarship given to
members of scheduled ·castes to study Medicine. If. he was not a member of
a scheduled caste he had run a risk of prosecution when he so claimed for
gettina the scholarship, and also rnn a similar risk for perjury in the ·present
case. [926 G-Hl
·
(3) Merely becall'Se the nieces of the second respondent were
married
I1ccording to Budahist rites, the Invitation for their marriage was in the Buddhist
. form, the second respondent's name was printed as one of those joining in the
invitlltion, at the time of the marriage the pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and the
Buddha were garlanded, . and a Buddhist Bhiku officiated at the marriage, It
could not be held that the second respondent was a Buddhist. [927 A-D, E. GJ
(a} The evidence shows that there is very little difference between a wedding according to "Buddhist rites and one according to Hindu rites. _Moreover,
Buddhist's rites are followed even where one of the parties to the marriage is .
a non-Buddhist, and there is no evidence that the Hindu partner does not
con~
tlnue to profess Hinduism thereafter. [927 D-E, 928 D-EJ
(b} The names of brothers are included in wedding invitations under the
head "With best compliments of', very often without their iiermission. [927 B-CJ
(c) The picture of Dr. Ambedkar might have been garlanded be:ause he WQS
held in great veneration by the Scheduled castes.
Th~refore, mete!y because
of the garlanding and the Buddhist Bhiku officiating at· the marriage, the wedding could not be considered to be according to Buddhist rites.
(928 A- BJ
(4} When one is born a Hindu .the fact that he g(\CS to. a Buddhi~t temple
or I!. Church or Durga cannot be said to show that he 1s no more 11 Hmdtt and ·
that he had changed bis religion. [929 C-DJ
(5} Also from the fa:t that Di". anJ Mrs. Ambedkar and a lar~e numl>~r
of people op°enly got themselves converted to Buddhism it does not follow that
all the members of the scheduled castes follow~d m their foot steps. [929 BJ
H ..
( 6} Religion is eSS!lf!tially a ~ighly pers<!nal matter al!d Hinduism is so
tolerant and Hindu reltg1ous prac!tces s<;> vane4 .and eclecttc \hat o!le wo~d
find it difficult to say whether a. person is pract!smg Of professing Hm~u rehgion 9r not. Jn such a matter. the _open assertion by a person, especially an
924
SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS
[1975] 2 s.c.a.
educated member of society, about the reliaion be professes should be given
considerable weight over tlie interested testimony of others based upon stray
instances. · [92~ c, 930 F-G]
.
.
C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No .. 348 of 1973.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th. November,
1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Election Petition
No. 1 of 1972.
.
L. M. Singhvi, M. C. Rajkarna, S. N. Ponikar, A. G. Maneses,
K. J. John and J. B. Dad

## Text

923
A
GANPAT
v.
RETURNING OFFICER & ORS.
December 4, 1974
R
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA JJ.]
Electio11-Member of Scheduled Caste-Al/egatio11 that relllrned cmu/ic/at1!
hecC1me a convert to B11ddlrism-Proo/.
c
D
E
F
G
In the election to the State Legislative Assembly to fill 11p a seat reserved
for members of . the scheduled castes from· Nagpur, the second respondent was
de_clared elected. The appellant challenged the ele:tion, on the ground, inter
alta, that the second respondent ceased to be a Hindu having been converted to
B11ddhism. The High Court dismissed the election p.>tition.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
JI ELD : (1} The second respondent was a well known Doctor in Nagpur,
.the appellant belonged to Nagpur and they belonged to scheduled castes b~forc
the second respondent's alleged conversion to Buddhism. And yet, the appellant has not giyen the date, the place or the drcumstances under which the
second respondent became a convert "lo Buddhism. Nor did the
appelJant
object at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, that the se1;<>nd
respondent was not a member of the scheduled caste.
[925 U-926 B, F~J
(2} The second respondent was born a Hindu and was married according
to Hindu rites. He went to Enl)land on a Government scholarship given to
members of scheduled ·castes to study Medicine. If. he was not a member of
a scheduled caste he had run a risk of prosecution when he so claimed for
gettina the scholarship, and also rnn a similar risk for perjury in the ·present
case. [926 G-Hl
·
(3) Merely becall'Se the nieces of the second respondent were
married
I1ccording to Budahist rites, the Invitation for their marriage was in the Buddhist
. form, the second respondent's name was printed as one of those joining in the
invitlltion, at the time of the marriage the pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and the
Buddha were garlanded, . and a Buddhist Bhiku officiated at the marriage, It
could not be held that the second respondent was a Buddhist. [927 A-D, E. GJ
(a} The evidence shows that there is very little difference between a wedding according to "Buddhist rites and one according to Hindu rites. _Moreover,
Buddhist's rites are followed even where one of the parties to the marriage is .
a non-Buddhist, and there is no evidence that the Hindu partner does not
con~
tlnue to profess Hinduism thereafter. [927 D-E, 928 D-EJ
(b} The names of brothers are included in wedding invitations under the
head "With best compliments of', very often without their iiermission. [927 B-CJ
(c) The picture of Dr. Ambedkar might have been garlanded be:ause he WQS
held in great veneration by the Scheduled castes.
Th~refore, mete!y because
of the garlanding and the Buddhist Bhiku officiating at· the marriage, the wedding could not be considered to be according to Buddhist rites.
(928 A- BJ
(4} When one is born a Hindu .the fact that he g(\CS to. a Buddhi~t temple
or I!. Church or Durga cannot be said to show that he 1s no more 11 Hmdtt and ·
that he had changed bis religion. [929 C-DJ
(5} Also from the fa:t that Di". anJ Mrs. Ambedkar and a lar~e numl>~r
of people op°enly got themselves converted to Buddhism it does not follow that
all the members of the scheduled castes follow~d m their foot steps. [929 BJ
H ..
( 6} Religion is eSS!lf!tially a ~ighly pers<!nal matter al!d Hinduism is so
tolerant and Hindu reltg1ous prac!tces s<;> vane4 .and eclecttc \hat o!le wo~d
find it difficult to say whether a. person is pract!smg Of professing Hm~u rehgion 9r not. Jn such a matter. the _open assertion by a person, especially an
924
SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS
[1975] 2 s.c.a.
educated member of society, about the reliaion be professes should be given
considerable weight over tlie interested testimony of others based upon stray
instances. · [92~ c, 930 F-G]
.
.
C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No .. 348 of 1973.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th. November,
1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Election Petition
No. 1 of 1972.
.
L. M. Singhvi, M. C. Rajkarna, S. N. Ponikar, A. G. Maneses,
K. J. John and J. B. Dadachanji,' for the appellant. ·
G. L. Sa'nghi, S. B. Wad, B. U. Wahano and Jayashree Wad, for
respondent No. 2.
K. L. Hathi and M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 21 and 22.
The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by
ALAOIRISWAMI, J. In the election to the
Maharashtra
Le!~S
lative Assembly held in March 1972 to fil up a seat from the North
Nagpur constituency reserved for members of the. Scheduled Castes
A
B
c
the 2nd respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an eliec- ·
tion petition questioning the election. That petition having been dis- · D
missed by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) this appe-al
has been file~ by the appellant.
··
In that 1:lection. as many as 19 persons filed their l)Omination
papers. Nine of them withdrew leaving respondents 2 to 10 and the
appellant in the field. One of them who withdrew was the 11th r1espondent, Ranjit Meshram, with whom we will !rave to deal later.· In
E
the election the 2nd respondent obtained 22,993 votes, the appelfont ·
obtained 21,115 votes, the 6th respondent obtained 16,123 votes and
the 9th respondent. 2,590 votes. It is unnecessary to refer to the otber
respondents or· the votes obtained by them because the arguments
before this Court have been confined to respondents 2, 6 and 9. As
many as 14 issues were framed for decision of which, as far as the
arguments before this Court are concerned, only issues 9 and 10
F
survive. · They are set (!Ut below :
"9. (a) Was the notice of withdrawal (document No. 5) tendered by the respondent No. 11 to the Returning
dfficer a valid one ?
(b) Did the notice of withdrawal (document No. 6) tendered ·by Shri S. P. Ukey in the prescribed fonil
cure the defect, if any; in the notice of withdrawal
(document No. 6)) ?
( c) Can these notices be said to be legally tendered. as
required by section 3 7 of the Representation. of the
People Act, 1951 ?
c:
( d) lf not, its effect ?
H
( e) Has the ac;ceptance of the withdrawal of the respondent No. 11 materially changed the election results?
A
B
GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER (Alagirlswami, /.)
925
10. (a) Are the respondents 2 and 4 to 10 converts to Buddhism and have they embmced and professed Buddhism and ceased to be Hindus ?
·
(b) If so, were they eligible to contest the election from
the Reserve Constituency ?
·
·
( c) If not eli~ible, what is the effect ?
(d) Did the candidature of the respondent No. 6, if he·
was disqualified on account of the conversion .
to Buddhism, materially affect and after the election ·
results?
,
·
·
( e) What is the effect of not raising the objection about
the eligibility of the c,andidate at the time of scrutiny
C
of the nominations ?
D
It may be necessary to notice issue 13 also because· the appellant had
prayed not only for setting aside the election of the 2nd respondent
but also for his being declared ckcted from the constituency.
Is5ue
9 relates to the question of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram to whom
reference has already been made. Issue 10 relates to the question
as to whether respondents 2 and 4 to 10 could be said to be members
of the Scheduled Castes so as to be clig1ble to stand for election from
th.is constituency.
Though in the pelltmn the question was raised
about respondents 2 and 4 .to 10, even in the High Court only the
question relating to respondents 2, 6 and 9 was considered. Before
this Court Dr. Singhvi appearjng for the appellant concentrated ·bis
•attention regarding the case of respondents 2 and 6 and preferred to
E . leave tdh.e cas
2 e of hrespohue
11
nt 9 alone.d Th
6
ishais because
1
next to. the
respon ent
and t e appe ant, rcspon ent .
s got the argest nwnber of votes. Even the question regarding respondent 6 is only important from the point of view of the prayer in the election petition
for . declaring the appellant elected after setting . aside the election of
the 2nd respondent. . If the 2nci respondeh~ is found not to belong
to a Scheduled Caste no further question will survive. It. is only if .
the 2nd respondent is found to b.:long to a Scheduled Caste that the
question whether respondent 6 also .is or is not a member of a Sche- .
F
G
H
duled Caste and the appellant could be declared elected would arise
at all. We shall first deal with is~ue 10 because that is concerned with
the most important questmn.
We must first of all notice the fact that when the nominations were
scrutinized the appellant did not object to the nomination papers. of
respondents ?, 6 and 9 being accepted on the ground that they we're
· not members of the Scheduled CaStes. Though legalliy there is no bar
to the appellant raising that question in the election petition questioning the election of the 2nd respondent his allegation that responden~
2 . 6 and 9 are not members of the Scheduled Castes would be consid~rably weakened because of his failure to object at the. time of the :
scrutiny of the nomination papers.
All foe candidates belong to the .
Nagpur City and all of them belong to the~hedul~ Castes, iggorill8 •
for the present the question whether they were Buddhists.· ResAAndents
2, 6 and 9 are not ordinary members of the Scheduled Castes.- Res-
!'''
···-•
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
pondent 2 is a doctor married to another doctor and practising in
A .
Nagpur City.
He sees 60 to 70 patients daily.
Respondent 6 is an
advocate and as is seen from the result he is popular enough to 1get
16,123 votes and his wife is a doctor, Respondent 9 is also a doctor.
They must, therefore, be well-known figures in Nagpur or at . least
among members of the Scheduled Castes.
The appellant should certainly have known them personally or at least heard of them.
He
should have also heard whether they were Hindus or Buddhists. He
B
must have known about their political activity.
This 1s one point of
view from which the evidence let in on behalf of the appellant should
be considered.
The second point is that the movement for members of the Scheduled Castes becoming Buddhists in order to get out of the Hindu society,
of which untouchability is an important constituent, seems. to have
G
been started l~y Dr. Ambedkar in 1956 in which year a large number
of members of the Scheduled Castes, including Dr. Ambedkar. and his
wife, publicall:y embraced Buddhism.
There is a Bhiku Niwas
in
Nagpur and Buddhist Vandana is held every Sunday.
The appellant
could not have been unaware of all this.
All the parties are persons
who must have been born many years before 1956 and so they must
have been formally converted. There is no allegation and there is · D
no evidence as to when, where and by whom respondents 2, 6 and 9
were converted to Buddhism.
Thirdly, the instances relied on were in the case of the 2nd n~s
pondent the part he played in the marriage of his two nieces, Usha
tmd Sushi!, whose marriages are said to have been celebrated according to Buddhist rites.
He is also alleged to have visited the Bhiku
Niwas and taken part in Buddist Vandana.
As regards the 6th rnspondent the instances given are only that of his own marriage and the
marriage of his sister Vimal, both of which are -said to have been pe:rformcd according to Buddhist rites.
The question regarding the namkaran ceremonies of the children of the respondents was not argut:Q.
Fourthly, we have got to consider this question in the context of
Indian society a.Pd the place of religious observance in so far as th1:y
show what religion they profess.
·
Taking first the case of the 2nd respondent, the date, the place or
the circumstances under which he became a convert to Buddhism is
not given in the election petition, nor is there any allegation that be
himself was married according to the Buddhist rites.
He asserts that
he is a Hindu, his wife is a Hindu and they were married according 1to
Hindu rites.
He is a medical graduate who went to England on a
scholarship provided by the Maharashtra Government on the ground
that he was a member of the Scheduled Castes. If he was not a member of the Scheduled Castes he cettainly ran a serious risk in claimir1g
to be a member of the Scheduled Castes and getting a fairly valuabile
scholarship enabling him to go to England and there is an equal risk
in declaring himself to be a member of the Scheduled Castes even
for the purpose of election if he were not one.
He further runs t1:1e
risk of being prosecuted for prejury in giving evidence in the petitfon
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F'
G
H
GANPAT l'· RETURNING OFFICER (Alagiriswami, /.)
927
claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Castes. It has not been
alleged that his marriage was according to the Buddhist rites and we
m~st, therefore, take his assertion that his marriage was according to
Hindu form at its face value. As regards his part in the marriage· of
his nieces he says he was standing outside and receiving guests while
the marriage ceremonies went on inside. The invitation card is, of
course, in the form wl:Pch one would expect a Buddhist to issue. The
marriage was of the 2nd respondent's nieces, not of his own c;laughters
aud the invitation was issued by his brother. The 2nd respondent'11
name is printed there as one of those joining in the invitation. But
it is well known that the names of brothers are usually included in
wedding invitations under the head "with the best compliments of".
People do not take the permission of those whose names are included
in the wedding invitations under that category and it is but natural
that the father of the bride should include the name of his brother
who as a doctor would be considered to be a prominent member of
the community to which the parties belonged. It is true that the
second respondent has said that his brother was also a Hindu but on
that ground ,the 2nd respondent's claim that he is a Hindu could not
be impugned.
There is also one curious feature about these marriages. What
exactly constitutes a proper Buddhist wedding is not very clear from
the evidence. The extract from the booklet 'Boudcharya Vidhi' marked as Ext.I 00-B refers, apart from recitation of the mantaras, to the
hdsband and wife being made either to wear rings or some Sindhur
being applied on the head and of tying the sacred thread. But almost
all the witnesses also mentioned that the mangal sutra is tied which
is a Hindu custom.
It also appears from the evidenee that at the time
of these marriages according to Buddhist rites the pictures of Dr.
A111bedkar and Buddha are garlanded. One witness for the petitionec
has said that Buddhism is against idol worship which really shows the
extent of his ignorance. The garlanding of Dr. Ambedkar's phot0
;graph cannot certainly be a religious part of the ceremony. Even
according to the Buddhists marriage is said to be one of the ten Sans-.
kars. Therefore, except perhaps for the garlanding of the pictures of
Dr. Ambedkar and Buddha there is very little difference between a
wedding according to Buddhist rites and a wedding according to Hindu
rites. The mantras which are in Pali or in Sanskrit are not like~y -to
be understood by the majority of the persons present. Indeed it· is
doubtful whether they would recognise the language as Pali', or Sanskrit.
As regards persons officiating in such marriages,· it is said that there are
two Bhikus in Nagpur, Dr. Kausalayan and Medhankar.
A Bhiku
is a sanyasi and at least in the Hindu sociefy a _sanyasi never officiates
as a priest ill a wedding. So any officiation -by a Bhiku in a wedding
in apparently something new which the neo Buddhists .in Nagpur or
Maharashtra might have adopted. The importance given
to
Dr.
Ambedkar is very significant in this context. He was a great scholar.
the chief ar~hitect of the Constitution, but also a politician. He seems
to have been held in great veneration by the Scheduled Castes particularly in Maharasht{a at least by Mahars among l:hem, he himself having been born a Mahar. That t}le Scheduled ~Castes in general and
Mahars in particular should have been very proud that he belonged
928
· ·SUPREME COURT llEPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.Jl.
to their community is natural enough and the respect and the ven1~ra
tion shown to him is also natural. But on· that ground we find it
difficult to accept that any marriage ·in which his photograph
was
garlanded or even a Buddhist Bhiku officiated should be constdered lo
be a wedding according to Buddhist rites. Curiously Medhankar has
not been examined in this case. What we say in this respect ~pplies
t0 a considerable extent to the marriages of the <tth respondent as· we 1
as his sister.
As regards the 2nd respondent visiting the Bhik11 Niwas, the explanation given by the 2nd respondent appears to be reasonable enough. His dispensary is near the Bhiku Niwas. He says that he has
gone there either as a medical man or on social occasions. . His joining the Buddhist Vandana is spoken to only by one of the witnesses,
Ramesh Vaidya and we are not prepared to hold on his ,solitary 1:vidence that tl1e 2nd respondent was taking part in the Vandana. We
find the 2nd respondent's evidence 0111 this point as more acceptable.
As far as the 6th respondent is concerned there is no evidence about
his visiting the Bhiku Niwas or joining the Buddhist Vandana. The
evidence is o!lly about his marriage and tllat of his sister being performed according to the Buddhist rites.
This matter has also to be looked at from another point of vit:w.
There is evidence in this case that persons who still continue to be·
Hindus marry persons who have become Buddhists and that in such
cases the officiating Bhiku asks them to become· Buddhist on the occilS'
A·
B
c
D
ion of the marriage. Again this might explain tlle resort to
the
Buddhist rites being followed in these marriages even where one of the
parties to the marriage is a non-Buddhist. There is no evidence that
.. E
in such cases the Hindu partner does not profess Hinduism thereafter.
There is also evidence that even some Hindu Mahars celebrate thieir
marriages according to Buddhist rite~ P.W.25's evidence regard·
ing his nephew's marriage.. It is very difficult therefore to rely upon
such evidence alone to hold that either the 2nd respondent or the tith
respondent are Buddhists. It should also be noted that the. 6th mspondent also denies that he became a Buddhist. We consider, therefore, that the evidence in this case does not ·Satisfactorily establish tlnat
either the 2nd respondent or the 6th respondent ceased to profc:ss
Hinduism, they having been undoubtedly born as Hindus.
In this connection it is necessary to remember that Hinduism is a
very broad based religion.
In fact some people take the view that it
is not a religion at all on the ground that there is no one founder and
no one sacred book for the Hindus. This, of course, is a very narrll•W
view merely based on the comparison between Hinduism on the 01!e
side ud Islam and (,'hristianity on the other. But one knows that
Hinduism through the ages has absorbed or accommodated manv differ-/
ent practfces, religious as weU as secular, and also different faiths. Oi!ti
of the witnesses has described that he considered Buddha as the 11th
Avtar. Indeed there are historians and sociologists who take the Yie:w
that Buddhi~m disappeared from India not by· any. other means b,ilt
by being absorbed into Hinduism. Therefore, if a certain commurtity
in a spirit of protest says th.at t~ey would give up Hinduism and adopt
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
·G
GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER (Alagiri.rwami, /.)
929
Buddhism il is nol likely to make much change either in their beliefs
or in their practices. Centuries of habit and custom cannot be ·wiped
out overnight.
While in the cast\ of highly educated members who
have chosen the new religion the change might make a difference in
their attitude and perhaps in their habits and customs, to the vast
majority it is likely to make very little difference.
Merely because in
a public meeting Dr. Ambedkar and Mrs.
Ambedkar . and a large
number of people openly got themselves converted to Buddhism it
does not automatically follow that all the members of the Scheduled
Castes followed them in their footsteps.
It does not even mea11 that
all Mahars, who seem to form the largest element among the neoBuddhists, became Buddhists. Hinduism is so tolerant and Hindu
religious practices so varied and eclectic that one would find it diffi:
cult to say whether one is practising or professing Hindu religion or
not. Especially when one. is born a Hindu the fact that he goes to a
Buddhist temple or a church or a durgah cannot ·Pe said to show that
they are no more Hindus unless it is clearly proved that they have
changed their religion from Hinduism to soine other
religion. In
Tamilnadu in Nagapatnam there is a Muslim Dutgah the majority of
pilgrims to which. are Hindus.
In the same towif there is a church
Vellankanni called Lourdes of the East after the famous Lady of the
Lourdes in France. In Andhra Hindus have names like Mastan Ayya
or Hussain Amma named after Muslim saints whose durgah are near
their places:
·
For a person who has grown up in Indian society it is very difficult
to get out of the coils of the caste system. There are many castes
among the Scheduled Castes. Though iii! of them are tainted with
untouchability, some among them claim to be higher than some others.
One knows of instances of ''high caste" members .of the Scht!duled
Castes addressing a "low caste" member of. -the Scheduled Castes in
the same waiy as the ordinary high caste Hindu would address a member of the Scheduled Castes. . The Urdu speaking Muslims in · the
South would rarely inter-marry with Tamil speaking Muslims. We
know that the Punjabi Muslims used to look ddWn upon the Bengali
Muslims .. Till recently Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs used to call themselves as Rajput Muslims, Rajput Sikhs, Muslim Jats1 and Hindu Jats.
Because of the Punjab legislation preventing alienation. of agricultural .
land many Muslims described themselves as agricultural tribes. At
least in the South of India· till recently there "'.ere churches wherte places were separately reserved for Schduled Caste Christians: To this
day one sees matrimonial adverti$Cments Which want a.Velhila Christian bride or Nadar Christian bride. All this is merely to indii:ate the
· difficulty of persorui getting out of the caste customs and the mentality
genertad thereby. The monstrous curse of untouehability has got to
be eradicated. . It has got to be eradicated not merely by making C9fl·
stitutional provisions or laws but also by eradicating it from the minds
and hearts of men. · For that it is even more important that members of communities ·who are untouchable should assert their self-respect and fight for their dignity than that members of the other 'COnl·
munitics should forget about it. Fortunateey things are changing. Jn
cities and bigger towns it can be said t<) have elmost disappeared. One /
H
rarely ~ows whether the other person he· meets is or is not·a member
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 S.C.R.
of the Scheduled Castes and no one bothers about it these days.
The
oppression which we read of sometimes in newspapers of the Schedulled Castes by the higher castes in villages· are really manifostation . c1f
the conflict between agricultural iabour or the agricultural serfs, as
the members of the Scheduled Castes mostly are, on the one side and
the land-holding class on the other.
It is wrong to describe them
as oppression of the Scheduled Castes by the higher castes. If fo
these circumstances some members of the Scheduled Castes in their
protest against the system of untouchability resort to desperate measures to erase the indignity of untouchability one cannot blame them.
But whether it produces any result is a different question, however
well-meaning such efforts may be. There may be other members of
the community equally educated and equally conscious of the indig·
nity of their being branded as untouchables who might still feel that
the way to remove untouchability is not by changing one's religion.
We have evidence in this c.ase that people who claim themselves to
have become Buddhists have taken advantage of scholarships and
other facilities granted by G-0vernment to members of
Scheduled
Castes. Whether such concession to members of Scheduled Castes
should also b~ extended to members of those castes who have changed
their religion is a different question. Whether the Scheduled Castes
Order should also describ~ such persons as members of the Scheduled
Castes is very relevant to the present question. We are of opinion
that the Scheduled Castes Order proceeds on a sound basis. The
attempt of persons who have changed their religion from Hinduism
. to Buddhism, who still claim the concessions and facilities . intended
for Hindus only shows that otherwise th1!se persons might get a vested
interest in continuing to be members of the Scheduled Castes. fo
course of time vested interests are created in continuing to be memben·.
of Schduled Castes as in continuing to be members of Backward
Classes.
It is from the point of view of diseouraging that . tendency
that the provisicm of the Scheduled Castes Order seems to be a proper
one.
·
We have said all this merely to show that this is not a case of black
and white but a grew area where customs and habits of centuries along
with some new ideas co-exist and it is difficult to say from a mari's
attitude in respect of certain questions whether he is a Hindu or a
Buddhist. Religion is essentially a highly personal matter and there
the open assertion J>y a person especially an educated member of the
society about the religion he professes should be given considerable
weight over the interested testimony of others based on stray instances.
We would, then)fore, in agreement with the High Court hold that the
respondents 2, 6 and 9 are not Buddhists but continue to be members
of the Scheduled Castes.
As regards fhe question of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram the evi--
dence of R.W. 2, the Returning Officer, shows that he knew Ranjit
Meshram and that Ranjit gave the withdrawal letter, Ext. 70. As
regards Ext.
Q9, of course, he is not quite sute. But his evidence
that be knew Ranjit Meshram and that Ranjit Meshram himself gave
the withdrawal letter Ext. 70 stands unrebutted. He is not able. to
remember clearly the circumstances under which he made the endorseA
c
J)
E
F
G
H
GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER (Alagiriswami, /.)
931
A
mcnt in Ext. 69 that it was given by Ranjit Meshram. It does not
affect his evidence regarding Ext.
70. No mala {ides have been impu··
ted to him and we see no reason why we should not accept his evidence.
Jn view of this and our finding that it has not been established that
respendents 2, 6 and 9 are not professing Hinduism it is unnecessary
to discuss the prayer regarding declaring the appellant elected.
'
8
In the result the ·appeal is dismissed with the costs of the 2nd respondent to be paid by the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.