# SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1}] SHRI V. V. GIRI v. DIPPALA SURI DORA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 426
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958-03-13
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-1960-1-shri-v-v-giri-v-dippala-suri-dora-and-others-1774
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Election-Double member constituency-Reserved seat-Scheduled Tribe candidate for reserved seat, if can be declared elected to
general seat--Provisions permitting sud• course, whether 11ltra vires
-Hindu Law-Member of Scheduled Tribo or Caste-Whcncan
attain higher caste--Representation of the People Act, I95I (43 of
I95I), s. 54(4)-Delimitation Commission Act, z952 (BI of z952). s. 8.
In a double member Parliamentary constituency one seat
was reserved for the scheduled tribes and the other was general.
Four persons filed their nominations for the election, Gr and G 2
for the general seat and Sr and Sz for the reserved seat. At
the polls the number of votes received by the candidates were
in the following order: Sr, Sz, G1 and Gz. In accordance with
the provisions of s. 54(4) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, Sr was declared elected to the reserved seat and S2, who
had received the largest number of votes out of the remaining
candidates, was declared elected to the general seat. Gr filed
an election petition for a declaration that the election of S2 was
void and for a farther declaration that he had himself been duly
elected to the general seat. The petition was based on three
grounds, viz., (i) that upon a proper. interpretation of s. 54(4) a
candidate who had filed his nomination for the reserved seat
could not be declared elected to the general seat; (ii) that if the
interpretation be otherwise then s. 54(4) was 11/tra vires; and
(iii) that S2 had ceased to be a member of ··a scheduled tribe at
the relevant time and his nomination was improperly accepted.
Held,. (Kapur, J., dissenting) that, Sz was properly and
validly declared elected.
The provisions of the Constitution and
of the Act show that the election in a double member constituency was held for the whole constituency and not for the seats
and a candidate who had filed nomination as a member of the
scheduled tribes was entitled to contest for both the seats. On
a fair and reasonable construction of s. 54(4) of the Act there
could be no doubt that in a case like the present, after S1 was
declared duly elected to the reserved seat, the votes secured by
the remaining three candidates had to be considered before declaring the election for the general seat. A member of the
scheduled tribe or caste did not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he availed himself of the
additional concession of standing for the reserved seat by making
the prescribed declaration for that purpose. It was not necessary for him to file two nomination papers for the two seats.
Section 54(4) of the Act did not offend Art. 14 or Art. 330 of
the Constitution and waii not uncon•titutional.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
427
Held, further, that the appellant had failed to establish that
z959
S2 had ceased to be a member of the scheduled tribe and had
become a Kshatriya. Whatever may have been the origin of
v. V. Gfri
Hindu castes ,and tribes in ancient times, gradually castes came to
"·
be based on birth alone. A person who belonged by birth to a Dippala Suri Dora
depressed caste or tribe wouid find it very .difficult, if not imposand Others
sible, to attain the status of a higher caste by virtue of his volition,
education, culture and status. The caste status of a person had to
be determinedin the light of the recognition received by him from
the members of the caste into which he sought an entry ; unilateral
acts of such a person asserting a higher status were not enough to
establish the higher status. It is to be hoped that this position
will change, and in course of time the cherished ideal of castless
society truly b.ascd on social equality will be attained under the
powerful impact of the doctrine of social justice and equality proclaimed by the Constitution and sought to be implemented by the
relevant statutes and as a result of the spread of secular education
and the growth of a rational outlook and of proper sense of social
values ; but at present it w

## Text

_Characters 0–39,884 of 62,606. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39884 for what follows._

1959
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1}]
SHRI V. V. GIRI
v.
DIPPALA SURI DORA AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR,
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Election-Double member constituency-Reserved seat-Scheduled Tribe candidate for reserved seat, if can be declared elected to
general seat--Provisions permitting sud• course, whether 11ltra vires
-Hindu Law-Member of Scheduled Tribo or Caste-Whcncan
attain higher caste--Representation of the People Act, I95I (43 of
I95I), s. 54(4)-Delimitation Commission Act, z952 (BI of z952). s. 8.
In a double member Parliamentary constituency one seat
was reserved for the scheduled tribes and the other was general.
Four persons filed their nominations for the election, Gr and G 2
for the general seat and Sr and Sz for the reserved seat. At
the polls the number of votes received by the candidates were
in the following order: Sr, Sz, G1 and Gz. In accordance with
the provisions of s. 54(4) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, Sr was declared elected to the reserved seat and S2, who
had received the largest number of votes out of the remaining
candidates, was declared elected to the general seat. Gr filed
an election petition for a declaration that the election of S2 was
void and for a farther declaration that he had himself been duly
elected to the general seat. The petition was based on three
grounds, viz., (i) that upon a proper. interpretation of s. 54(4) a
candidate who had filed his nomination for the reserved seat
could not be declared elected to the general seat; (ii) that if the
interpretation be otherwise then s. 54(4) was 11/tra vires; and
(iii) that S2 had ceased to be a member of ··a scheduled tribe at
the relevant time and his nomination was improperly accepted.
Held,. (Kapur, J., dissenting) that, Sz was properly and
validly declared elected.
The provisions of the Constitution and
of the Act show that the election in a double member constituency was held for the whole constituency and not for the seats
and a candidate who had filed nomination as a member of the
scheduled tribes was entitled to contest for both the seats. On
a fair and reasonable construction of s. 54(4) of the Act there
could be no doubt that in a case like the present, after S1 was
declared duly elected to the reserved seat, the votes secured by
the remaining three candidates had to be considered before declaring the election for the general seat. A member of the
scheduled tribe or caste did not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he availed himself of the
additional concession of standing for the reserved seat by making
the prescribed declaration for that purpose. It was not necessary for him to file two nomination papers for the two seats.
Section 54(4) of the Act did not offend Art. 14 or Art. 330 of
the Constitution and waii not uncon•titutional.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
427
Held, further, that the appellant had failed to establish that
z959
S2 had ceased to be a member of the scheduled tribe and had
become a Kshatriya. Whatever may have been the origin of
v. V. Gfri
Hindu castes ,and tribes in ancient times, gradually castes came to
"·
be based on birth alone. A person who belonged by birth to a Dippala Suri Dora
depressed caste or tribe wouid find it very .difficult, if not imposand Others
sible, to attain the status of a higher caste by virtue of his volition,
education, culture and status. The caste status of a person had to
be determinedin the light of the recognition received by him from
the members of the caste into which he sought an entry ; unilateral
acts of such a person asserting a higher status were not enough to
establish the higher status. It is to be hoped that this position
will change, and in course of time the cherished ideal of castless
society truly b.ascd on social equality will be attained under the
powerful impact of the doctrine of social justice and equality proclaimed by the Constitution and sought to be implemented by the
relevant statutes and as a result of the spread of secular education
and the growth of a rational outlook and of proper sense of social
values ; but at present it would be unrealistic and utopian to ignore
the difficulties which a member of the depressed tribe or ai.ste
has to face in claiming a higher status amongst his co-religionists.
Per Kapur, J.-The election of S2 to the general seat was not
valid. When a member of the scheduled tribe or caste offered
himself for election to a reserved seat he could be elected only to
that seat and not to the general seat. The provisions of the Constitution and of the Act show that the election in a constituency
was for filling of a seat in the constituency and not for a constituency. When a candidate offers himself for election in a constituency, he does so for election to fill a seat in the constituency.
Therefore, if a candidate wanted to contest both the seats he had
to file two nomination papers one for the general seat and the
other for the reserved seat and he had to make two deposits.
Section 8(2) of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952 destroyed
the effect of s. 54 of the Act.
Caste in Hinduism had its origin not on the basis of birth but
of gima, karma and subhavana (quality, actions and character).
Caste is nothing but division of labour. Hinduism might have
become static at one time; it is no longer so and it is wrong to
say that caste is dependant upon birth and not on karma i.e.
action. S. 2 had by his actions raised himself to the position of a
Kshatriya and he was no longer a member of the scheduled tribe
or caste.
CIVIL
APPEI.LATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 539 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated March 13, 1958 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Special Appeal No. 4of1957, arising out
of the judgment and order dated November 18, 1957,
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
I959
of thll Election Tribunal, Hyderabad in Election Petition No. 83of1957.
Y. Y.Giri
v.
N. 0. Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and T. Satyanarayana,
DippalaSu'iD°'• for the appellant.
·
GM Others
R
nJi/.,
d
ha .
.
P. ama R~11 an R. Ma lingaiyer, for respondent
No. I.
S.S. Shukla, for respondent No. 2.
1959. May 20. The judgmentofB. P. Sinha, Jafar
Imam, P. B. Ganjendragadkarand K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.
was
delivered by P. B. Gajendragadkar, J. J. L.
Kapur, J. delivered a separate judgment.
G•jl'illl,•gadka,J.
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal by special leave
arises from an election petition filed by Mr. V. V. Giri
(hereinafter called the appellant) in which the validity
of the. election of Mr. Dippala Suri Dora (hereinafter
called respondent 1) w:Ls challenged. The Parliamentary
Constituency of Parvatipuram in the State of Andhra
Pradesh is a double-member constituency; one seat is
reserved for the scheduled tribes and the other is
general. In the General Election to the House of the
People held in 1957 four candidates had been nominated from the said constituency. The appellant and
Mr. B. Satyanarayana Dora (hereinafter called respondent 2) were adopted by the Congress Party, while
respondent 1 and Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy Naidu
(hereinafter called respondent 3) were the candidates
of the Socialist Party. For this constituency polling
took place between February 25 and March 19, 1957,
and the counting of votes disclosed that the appellant
and the three respondents had securedl,24,039, 1,24,604,
1,26,792 and 1,18,968 votes respectively.
The result
of the election was declared on March 19, 1957. It was
announced that respondent 2 had been elected to fill
the reserved seat and respondent I the general seat.
On April 16, 1957, the appellant filed the present election petition No. 83of1957 challenging the validity
of respondent l's election. He alleged that respondent I
had offered himself as a candidate for the reserved
seat and as such he was not entitled to be elected for
the general seat.
In the alternative he urged that
8.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
respondent 1 wa.s not a. member of the scheduled tribe
zgsg
a.t the ma.teria.l time a.nd so the deola.ra.tion ma.de by
him in that beha.lf wa.s fa.lse.
According to the appelv. ~.Gin
la.nt respondent l's nomination ha.d, therefore, been Dippala S•ri Dor11
impropiirly a.ccepted a.nd it ha.d ma.teria.lly affected the
...a. 0111.rs
election. That is why the a.ppella.nt cla.imed a. two-
.
fold decla.ra.tion. He wanted the tribunal to decla.re Ga1""''
11'"""" J.
that the election of respondent 1 under the Representa.-
tion of the People Act, 1951 {Act 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act) wa.s void a.nd that he had himself
been duly elected to the House of the People from the
Pa.rva.tipura.m Parlia.menta.ry Constituency for the
genera.I a.nd non-reserved sea.t. These a.llega.tions were
denied by respondent 1.
Broadly sta.ted the ma.in pa.rt of the a.ppella.nt's
case rested on two grounds.
He relied on the fact
that both the Congress a.nd Socia.list Parties ha.d adopted two ca.ndida.tes ea.ch, one for the reserved sea.t-a.nd
the other for the genera.I seat. Respondent 1 had been
a.dopted for the reserved seat and in the nomination
forms filed on his behalf he ha.d ma.de the requisite
decla.ration that he was a member of the scheduled
tribe. He conducted his election campaign on the
be.sis tha.t he was a. candidate for the reserved seat a.nd
the voters must ha.ve voted for him on the sa.me basis.
If it is found that his rive.I candidate for the sa.id
reserved sea.t (respondent 2) secured a. larger number
of votes and so he wa.s decla.red elected to fill the said
sea.t, it is not open to respondent 1 to cla.im election
for the genera.l seat. If a candidate offers himself for
one seat, how can he claim to be elected for the other,
asks the appellant.
The appellant concedes that the reservation of sea.ts
for the scheduled castes or tribes is a. special concession
shown to the members of the said castes and tribes in
view of the fa.ct that they a.re educationally socially ·
and financially very ba.ckwa.rd ; it is also conceded
that members of the scheduled castes or tribes a.re
entitled to contest election for the genera.I seat; but
the argument is that a member of a scheduled tribe
must make up his mind and decide which seat he wishes
to contest. If he wants to contest the general seat he
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1}]
z959
may do so and in that event he should not make the
. .
prescribed declarations on his nomination form; on the
v. v. Gin
other hand, if he wants to contest the reserved seat he
Dippala~uriDora should elect to do so, make the necessary declaration
and others
and then concentrate his attention on the reserved
seat. Having once made his election he cannot subseGajendragadk•r J. quently fall back upon his right to he elected for the
general seat. Thus presented the argument no doubt
appears to be plausible and even attractive.
Respondent 1, however, dispute the validity of this
contention. His case is that the reservation of seats
is intended as an additional and special concession to
the scheduled castes or tribes. That, however, does
not affect the right of the members of the said castes
or tribes to claim along with the other citizens of the
CYmtry the right to be elected to the general seat. In
other words, according to respondent 1, a member of
the scheduled tribe is entitled to claim election either
to the reserved seat or to the general seat in a doublemember constituency, where one seat is reserved for
the scheduled triues or castes. ·when a member of the
scheduled tribe makes a declaration about his status
on his nomination form it merely means that he claims
the additional benefit of being eligible for election to
the reserved seat. If in the fight for the reserved
seat his rival candidate defeats him, that cannot detract from, or affect, his right to claim election to the
general seat; and if the voters in the constituencies
have expressed their confidence in him by putting him
at the top amongst the remaining candidates, he is
entitled to claim election to the said general seat. The
object of reserving seats obviously is to create confidence in the minds of the hackward castes and tribes
and to give them an assurance about their welfare and
future in the political set up of the country. This
object necessarily implies that the members of the said
castes and tribes should have a double opportunity of
seeking election from a double-member constituency.
B,espondent 1 does not concede that he contested the
election solely for the reserved seat. It is admitted on
his behalf that he did make the necessary declaration
and he may have brought it to the notice of the voters
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
431
-
that he was a member of the scheduled tribe. That
.r959
was inevitable since he was claiming to be elected for
the reserved seat. It is, however, urged that if in law
v. v~.Giri
election took place for the constituency as a whole, DippalaSuriDora
and not for separate seats, the fact that his nominaand Others
tion paper referred to " the reserved constituency"
-
d
f ' ·
t
t
d
·
th
f ·h.
Gajendragadkar J
an some o ms sta emen s
urmg
e course o
is
·
election campaign mentioned the fact that he was ~~
member of the scheduled tribe would not prcjurliciaJly
affect his right to claim election for the general seat. ·
Incidentally respondent 1 claimed that the declaration
of his election to the general seat in fully consistent.
with the express provisions of s. 54(4) of the Act,
whereas the appellant pleaded in reply that the construction sought to be placed upon the provisions of
s. 54(4) by respondent 1 was unreasonable and if not
the said provision was ultra. vires.
On the three major points which thus arose for decision in the present election petition the Election
Tribunal at Hyderabad and the High Court of Andhra.
Pradesh have differed. The Tribunal upheld
the
appellant's contentions, mad0 the two declarations
claimed by him and allowed his election petition w·ith
costs. On appeal to the High Court the point.s made
by respondent 1 have been accepted, the findings ma.de
by the tribunal and the declarations granted by it
have been reversed and the appellant.'s election petition dismissed with costs throughout. The appellant's
application for a certificate was dismissed by the High
Court.
Thereupon he applied to this Court and
obtained special leave to appeal. That is how this
appeal has come before us.
What then is the true constitutional and legal position with regard to the election to the House of the
People from a double-member constituency where one
seat is reserved for the members of the scheduled
tribes or castes ? The answer to this question would
depend upon the effect of the relevant provisions of
the Constitution and the Act respectively. Let us
first examine the relevant articles of the constitution.
Article 325 provides that there shall be one general
electoral roll for every territorial constituency for
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
-
1959
election to either House of Parliament and that no
. .
person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll
v. Y. Gin
or claim to be included in any such electoral roll for
DippaJav~vriDora any such constituency on grounds only of' religion,
.,;,, Others
ra.ce, caste, sex or any of them. Article 326 which
dee.ls inter alia with the elections to the House of the
Gajfflllracadkar J. People la.ys down tha.t the said elections shall be on
the basis of adult suffrage, that is to say, every person
who is a citizen of India and who is not less than
21 years of .age at the relevant date and is not otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or any law
made by the appropriate Legislature on the grounds
specified shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at
any such election. It is thus clear that the electoral
roll is prepared on a purely secular basis without any
reference to religion, race, caste or sex and that the
qualification for being included as a voter on the said
electoral roll is likewise wholly secular and of general
application to all citizens in the country.
Let us then refer to the articles that deal with the
composition of the House of the People and qualification for membership of Parliament. Article 81 (1)
provides that subject to the provisions of Art. 331 the
House of the People shall consist inter alia of not more
than 500 members chosen by direct election from
territorial constituencies in the States. This article
contemplates the division of the States into territorial
contituencies and it provides for the election of 500
members from these constituencies to the House of
the People.
Article 84 deals with the question of
qualification and it provides that a person shall not be
qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Parliament
unless he is (a) a citizen of India, (b) in the case of a
seat in the House of the People not less than 25 years
of age, and (c) possesses such other qualifications as
may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law
made by Parliament.
It is by virtue of Art. 84(c) that the Parliament has
passed the two relevant statutes. They are the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act 43 of 1950)
and the Act. We will presently refer to the relevant
provisions of the Act. Meanwhile we would like to
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
433
refer to another article of the Constitution which is
i959
very important. It is Art. 330. It occurs in Pt. XVI
v. v. Giri
of the Constitution which deals with special provisions
v.
relating to certain classes. It provides for the reserva. Dippala. Suri Dora
tion of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
and Others
in the House of the Pe?ple. Article 331 lays down that Gajend-;;:;;.dkar J.
seats shall be reserved m the House of the People for
the three categories enumerated in (a), (b) and (c). In
the present case we are concerned with the second
category which deals with the scheduled tribes.
Article 330(2) provides inter alia that the number of
seats reserved in any State for the scheduled tribes
under sub-Art.(l) shall bear as nearly as may be
the same proportion fo the total number of seats allotted to that State in the House of the People as the
population of the scheduled tribes in the State or part
of the State as the case may be in respect of which
sea.ts are so reserved bears to the population of the
State. In providing for the members of the scheduled
tribes the special concession by way of reservation of
seats the Constitution has adopted the fair, just and
equitable method of fixing the number of the said
reserved seats on the basis of the proportion mentioned
in Art. 330(2). Whilst we a.re referring to this article
we may incidentally mention Art. 334 which provides
that the reservation of seats provided by Art. 330 shall
cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of ten
years from the commencement of the Constitution
subject to the proviso.
Thus it is clear that election to the House of the
People even from a,, double-member constituency where
one seat is reserved for the members of the scheduled
tribes in one, and though the Constitution shows just
anxiety to afford necessary protection to the members
of the scheduled tribes, it deliberately refused to adopt
the system of separate ele<'torates. The constituency is
one and election is held to the said constituency from
one joint electoral roll prepared on the basis of qualifications which are of general and uniform application.
In regard to. double-member constituencies like
Parvatipuram the Constitution has not even adopted
the course of providing for a special constituency
5~
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
'959
confined to the members of the scheduled tribe. All that
is done is to provide for the reservation of seats for the
v. v~.Giri
members of the said tribes or castes in the manner
Dippala Suri Dora already indicated. Even for the reserved seat all
and Othm
voters in the constituency are entitled to vote. The
reservation of a seat in a double-member constituency
Gajendr•gadkar J. cannot, therefore, affect the main basic position that
the constituency is one and for returning representatives to the House of the People it is the same joint
electorate that goes to the poll.
Let us now proceed to consider the position under
the relevant provisions of the Act. It is necessary to
begin with the definitions of parliamentary constituency
and election. Section 2(f) of the Representation of the
People Act, 43 of 1950, defines a "parliamentary
constitutency" as meaning a constituency provided by
law for the purpose of elections to the House of the
People; whereas s. 2(d) of the .A:ct defines "election"
to mean an election to fill a seat or seats inter alia in
House of Parliament. These definitions show that it
is a parliamentary constituency that sends the representatives to fill the seats in the House of the People.
Elections are held from such constituencies and
candidates declared duly elected fill the seats in the
House of Parliament to which they are elected. Section 4
prescribes qualification for membership of the House
of the People. Section 4(b) provides that a person
shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the
House of the People unles~ in the case of a seat reserved for the scheduled tribes he is a member of any of
the scheduled tribes and is an elector for any parliamentary constituency. This section expressly provides
what was clearly implicit in the relevant articles of the
Constitution that before a person can claim to be elected to fill a seat reserved for the scheduled tribes he
must be a member of the said tribes besides being an
elector for the parliamentary constituency in question.
Section 32 deals with the nomination of candidates for
election and it provides that any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat if he is
qualified to be chosen to fill a seat under the provisions of the Constitution ;i,nd the Act. The next section
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
435
to consider is s. 33. It deals with the presentation of
r959
nomination papers and prescribes the requirements for
v v c· .
a valid nomination. Section 33(2) is relevant for our
· ~. •ti
purpose. It provides that any constituency where any Dippala Suri Dora
seat is reserved a candidate shall not be deemed to be
and Others
qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomin-
, -
ation paper contains a declaration by him specifying Ga;endragadkar J.
the particular tribe of which he is a member and the
area in relation to which the tribe is a scheduled tribe
of the State. Section 33(6) lays down that nothing in
this section shall prevent any candidate from being
nominated by more than one nomination paper for
election in the same constituency. The effect of s. 33(2)
is that unless a member of the scheduled tribe makes
the required declaration he would not be entitled to
claim election to the reserved seat. In other words, if
a member of the scheduled tribe does not want to be
considered for election to the reserved seat he need
not make the said declaration; and in that case he
would be entitled to contest the election only for the
general seat. But it does not follow that if a scheduled tribe candidate makes the said declaration he forfeits
his right to contest for the general seat. It is necessary
to point out at this stage that the prescribed nomination paper (F'orm 24) is common to all the candidates.
In regard to the candidates contesting for the reserved
seat, however, the form prescribes the declaration
which they are required to make. In the matter of
deposits required by s. 34 another concession is made in
favour of the members of the scheduled castes or
tribes ; whereas in the case of an election from a
parliamentary constituency a candidate is required to
make a deposit of Rs. 500 the amount is fixed at
Rs. 250 in the case of members of scheduled castes or
tribes.
It is significant that this concession is not
confined to members of the scheduled tribe contesting
the election only for the reserved seat. It is available
to them even if they want to contest only for the
general seat. Section 35 requires a notice of nominations and a time and place for their scrutiny to be
published ; and s. 38 requires a list of contesting candidates to be published. The two prescribed forms for
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
'959
the said notices are Forms 3A and 4 ; they make no
reference to the two respective seats and give the
V. V. Giri
v.
particulars about all the candidates in the respectDippala St1ri Dora ive columns. It is true that in col. (6) of ]'orm
and Otilers
3A particulars of caste or tribe of candidates belonging
G .
-
k
to scheduled castes or tribes are required to be men-
•J•naragad •r f. tioned. That is consistent with the requirement of
s. 33(2). It would thus be seen that the scheme of the
relevant provisions of the Act, like the scheme of the
relevant articles of the Constitution, is clear. The
election to the House of the People from a doublemember constituency is held as an election from the
whole of the constituency as such. It is on that basis
that the nomination papers are required to be filed.
The notifications about the nominations are published
and the list of the validly nominated candidates is
announced on the same basis. The counting of votes
is similarly made by reference to all the candidates.
It is only when the result of the election is prepared
for declaration that the votes of candidates who have
made the prescribed declarations are first taken into
account and the result of the election in respect of the
reserved seat is first determined, and then the votes
secured by the remaining candidates are ta.ken into
account and the result of the election for the other
general seat is determined and declared.
Section 63 of the Act would also assist us in deciding the point in dispute between the parties. Section 63 ( 1) pro".ides for the method of voting and it
lays down that in plural-member constituencies other
than Council constituencies every elector shall have
as many votes as there are members to be elected but
no member shall give more than one vote to any one
candidate. It is not disputed that voters in a doublemember constituency are not bound to vote in reference to the two seats. If the Act had intended that
the election in such a consituency should take place
by reference to the two respective seats, it would have
provided for voting by the electors on that basis, and
would have required the voters to cast their two votes
respectively by reference to the two seats. Section
63(1) on the other hand allows voters to cast their two
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT H.EPORTS
437
votes to any two candidates of their choice whether
· r959
both of them claim to be elected to the general seat or
I
V. V. Giri
to the reserved seat or one of t iem claims one seat
v.
and other claims the other. This method of voting is Dippala Suri Dora
inconsistent with the appellant's case that the election
and Others
to the double-member constituency is held· seat.wise.
-
.
h . ll b ,
h
. Gajendragadkar ],
Sect10n 54(4) emp atwa y rmgs out t e same position. Section 54 (1) provides that it shall apply in
relation to any election in a constituency where the
seats to be filled include one or more seats reserved
for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Subsection (4) reads thus:-
" If the n~mber of contesting candidates qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats exceeds
the number of such seats, and the total number of
contesting candidates also exceeds the total number
of seats to be filled, a poll shall be taken ; and after
the poll has been taken, the returning officer shall
first declare those who, being qualified to be chosen
to fill the reserved seats, have secured the largest
number of votes, to be duly elected to fill the reserved seats, and then declare such of the remaining
candidates as have secured the largest number of
votes to be duly elected to fill the remaining
seats."
On a fair and a reasonable construction of this provision there can be no doubt that in a case like the
present, after respondent 2 was declared duly elected
to the reserved seat, the votes secured by the remaining
three candidates had to be considered before declaring the election for the unreserved scat and that is
precisely what the returning officer has done when he
declared that respondent I had been duly elected to
the said seat. The illustration to this sub-section
makes this position absolutely clear. This is how the
illustration reads:-
" At an election in a constituency to fill four
seats of which two are reserved there are six
contesting candidates A, B, 0, D, E an4 P, and they
secure votes in descending order, A securing the
largest number, B, C and D are qualified to be
chosen to fill the reserved seats, while A, E and .I!'
438
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S [1960(1)]
z959
V. V. Giri
are not so qualified.
The returning officer will first
declare B and C duly elected to fill the two reserved
seats, and then declare A and D (not A and E) to
Dippala v~uri Dora
fill the remaining two seats."
and Others
In our opinion s. 54(4) and the illustration are wholly
. -
consistent with the relevant provisions of the ConGa;endragadkar J. stitution and of the Act.
Whilst we a.re dealing with s. 54 we may incidentally
refer to the appellant's argument based on s. 6(2) (c) of
the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952 (81 of 1952)
which provides that in every two-member constituency
one seat shall be reserved either for the scheduled
castes or for the scheduled tribes, and the other seat
shall not be so reserved. It is urged that in view of this
provision the case contemplated by the illustration to
s. 54 (4) is not likely to occur any more and in that
sense the illustration has become otiose. That may be
true. But .even so the significance of the illustration
lies in the fact that it clarifies and explains concretely
how the reservation of seats for the depressed castes
and. tribes will actually work out in elections in the
relevant constituencies.
There is another argument which may be noticed.
It was faintly suggested by the ·appellant that s. 54 (4)
is ultra vires since it is inconsistent with Arts. 14
and 330 of the Constitution. One has merely to recall
the provisions of Art. 15 (3) and·(4) to reject the argument thats. 54(4) offends against Art. 14. As regards
Art 330 it is obvious that the reservation of seats as
therein specified is intended to guarantee a minimum
number of seats to the scheduled castes and tribes; therefore if members of the said castes and tribes secure
additional seats by election to general unreserved
seats there would be no repugnancy at all. There is
no substance in the contention that s. 54 (4) is ultra
vires.
There is one more section of the Act to which reference must be made. It is s. 55. For the avoidance
of doubt this.section declares that a member of the
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes shall not be disqualified to hold the seat not reserved for members
of those castes or tribes if he is otherwise qualified to
S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
439
hold such seat under the Constitution and the Act.
r959
If the appellant's contention is upheld then the proviv v a· .
sions of s. 55 would be inapplicable to a member of
· ~ "'
the scheduled tribe solely because he has made the Dippala s~ri Dora
prescribed declaration in his nomination form in order
and Others
to claim the benefit of the concession of the reserved
seat in his constituency. We see no justification for Gajendragadkar J.
adopting such an artificial and restricted construction
of s. 55. In our opinion s. 55, like s. 54(4), is consistent with the other relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Act. A member of the scheduled tribe is
entitled to contest for the reserved seat and for that
purpose he can and must make the prescribed declaration; but it does not follow that because he claims the
benefit of the reserved seat and conforms to the statutory requirement in that behalf, he is precluded from
contesting the election, if necessary, for the general
seat. Once it is realised that the election is from the
constituency ljl.S a whole and not by reference to two
separate and distinct seats there would be no difficulty
in accepting the view taken by the returning officer
when he declared respondent 1 to have been duly
elected for the general seat.
It is true that some articles of the Constitution and
some sections of the Act refer to seats in connection
with election to the House of the People. ]'or instance,
when Art. 81 (2) (b) provides for the same ratio
throughout the State between the population of each
constituency and the number of seats allotted to it, it
does refer to seats, but in the context the use of the
word " seats" was inevitable.
Similarly Art. 84
which lays down the qualification for the members of
Parliament begins by saying that a person shall not be
qualified to be chosen " to fill a seat" in Parliament
unless he satisfies the tests prescribed by its els. (a),
(b) and (o). Here again the expression "to fill a seat"
had to be used in the context. The same comment
can be made about the use of the 'word " seat " in
Arts. 101 (2) and in 330. There is no doubt that when
a candidate is duly elected from any constituency to
the House of the People he fills a seat in the House as
an elected representative of the said constituency ;
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
'959
and. so the expression "filling the seat " is naturally
used whenever the context so requires.
v. v~.Giri
The position in regard to the sections of the Act
DippalaSuriDora which.use the word "seat" or the expression "fill the
am! others
seat" is exactly similar. Section 32 of the Act says
-
that any person may be nominated as a candidate for
Gajendragadkar J. election to "fill a seat" if he is qualified in that behalf.
This section does not mean that the nomination of a
person as a. candidate for election is for a seat; such
nomination is for the constituency. After the election
is over the elected candidate is qualified to fill a seat
in the House of the People to which he is elected. It
is in that sense that the .expression " a candidate for
election to fill a seat" is used in this section. The use
of the same expression in ss. 33(2), 53(2), 54, and 55
bears the same interpretation. The use of the said
expression or the reference to "seat" in some of the
articles of the Constitution or the sections of the Act
does not, therefore, mean that election to the. House
of the People from a double-member constituency is
held not for the constituency as a whole but by reference to the two seats.
There is no doubt that in the case of double-member
constituencies recognised political parties usually adopt
two candidates, one for the general seat an.d the other
for the reserved seat; and it does appear that under
the relevant statutory order issued by the Election
Commission the symbol reserved for the party is
allotted to both such candidates with the only difference that the symbol allotted to the scheduled caste or
the scheduled tribe candidate of the party is the
particular symbol enclosed within a thick black circle.
This order has been issued for convenience in order to
enable the very large number of illiterate and uneducated voters to identify the political affiliations of the
candidates for election; and to show which of the
candidates are eligible for the reserved seat; but the
said order cannot affect the nature of the election nor
does it purport to do so.
Similarly a candidate who
has made the prescribed declaration under s. 33 may
withdraw his candidature under s. 37 which would
mean that he is no longer contesting any seat in the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
441
constituency ; but that again cannot justify the inferz95f
ence that his candidature was in regard to a reserved
seat for which election was seperately intended to be
v. ~.Girl
held. In fact, in regard to a double-member con- DippalaSuriDora
stituency election recognises no compartments at all ;
and Others
it is one general election with reservation of seats ;
that is all.
Gajmdraiadkar J.
It was then contended by the appellant that even if
it may be open to a member of the scheduled tribe to
seek election either for the reserved seat or failing that
for the general seat he ought to file two nomination
papers in that behalf. In our opinion this contention
is not wellfounded. It is conceded that there is no
provision for the presentation of two nomination
papers for two different-seats in the same constituency.
Indeed such an assumption would be inconsistent with
the basic character of the election from a doublemember constituency. In our opinion, the true position is'that a. member of a scheduled caste or tribe
does
not forego his right to seek election to the
general seat merely because he avails himself of the
additional concession of the reserved seat by making
the prescribed declaration for that purpose. The claim
of eligibility for the reserved seat does not exclude the
claim for the general seat ; it is an additional claim ;
and both the claims have to be decided on the basis
that there is one election from the double-member
constituency.
In this connection we may refer by way of analogy
to the provisions made in some educatio'nal institutions
and universities whereby in addition to the prizes and
scholarships awarded on general competition amongst
all the candidates, some prizes and scholarships are
reserved for candidates belonging to backward communities. In such cases, though the backward candidates
may try for the reserved prizes and scholarships, they
a.re not precluded from claiming the genera.I prizes and
scholarships by competition with the rest of the candidates. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High
Court was right in rejecting the appellant's contention
that respondent 1 could not have been validly elected
56
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
r959
for the general seat from the constituency of Parvativ v G'.
puram.
· · '"
That takes us to the alternative contention raised
Dippala~uriDora by the appellant against the validity of respondent l's
and others
election. That contention is that respondent 1 had
ceased to be a member of the scheduled tribe at the
Gajendragadkar J. material time because he had become a kshatriya. In
dealing with this contention jt would be essential to
bear in mind the broad and recognised features of the
hierarchical social structure prevailing amongst the
Hindus. It is not necessary for our present purpose
to trace the origin and growth of the caste system
amongst the Hindus. It would be enough to state
that whatever may have been the origin of Hindu
castes and tribes in ancient times, gradually castes
came to be based on birth alone. It is wellknown that
a person who belongs by birth to a depressed caste or
tribe would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to
attain the status of a higher caste amongst the Hindus
by virtue of his volition, education, culture and status.
The history of social reform for the last century and
more has shown how difficult it is to break or even to
relax the rigour of the inflexible and exclusive character of the caste system. It is to be hoped that this
position will change, and in course of time the
cherished ideal of casteless society truly based on social
equality will be attained under the powerful impact of
the doctrine of social justice and equality proclaimed by
the Constitution and sought to be implemented by the
relevant statutes and as a result of the spread of
secular education and the growth of a rational outlook
and of proper sense of social values; but at present it
would be unrealistic and utopian to ignore the difficulties which a member of the depressed tribe or caste
has to face in claiming a higher status amongst his co.
religionists.