2005 JTR(SC) 163
2005 26 AIC 9 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 909 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 600 ; 2005 58 AllLR 668 ; 2005 1 AWC 679 ; 2005 3 CivLJ 749 ; 2005 1 CTC 604 ; 2005 2 JCR(SC) 58 ; 2005 1 JT 556 ; 2005 2 MPHT 90 ; 2005 1 PLJR(SC) 390 ; 2005 2 PLR(SC) 246 ; 2005 1 RCR(Civ) 614 ; 2005 2 RSJ 65 ; 2005 1 Scale 635 ; 2005 2 SCC 731 ; 2005 1 SCT 629 ; 2005 3 SLR 402 ; 2005 2 UPLBEC 1293 ; 2005 KHC 437 ; 2005 1 Supreme 564
2005(1) Supreme 564
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Sandhya Thakur —Appellant
versus
Vimla Devi Kushwah & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 701 of 2004
Decided on 28-1-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kr. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhania, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Indra Makwana, Advocates.
Important pointA candidate, who by birth did not belong to a backward class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.332, Art.15(4), Art.330, Art.323, Art.16(4), Art.320
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT : S.81, S.100
(A) The constitutional provisions including Article 15(4), Article 16(4), Article 320, Article 330, and Article 332 read with Sections 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act form the legal framework governing reservations in local body elections and the conduct of election petitions. The statutory scheme contemplates that reservations for backward classes in local body elections are to be enjoyed only by individuals who belong to those classes by birth, and the protection of reservation cannot be extended through mechanisms such as marriage. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 through a writ petition, is mandated to examine whether the principles laid down in this Courts precedents and statutory provisions have been correctly applied by the adjudicating authorities. The circular issued by the State Government clarifying the scope of reservation and its applicability to elections to local bodies is a relevant administrative instrument that must be considered by the courts in determining the eligibility of a candidate. The courts analysis of the election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act involves a determination of whether the candidate fulfilled the essential conditions precedent to claiming reservation.
(B) The core legal principles are that eligibility for reservation in local body elections is determined by birth and not by marriage; the decision of the High Court under Article 226 is binding if it correctly applies the principles of statutory interpretation and precedent; and a circular clarifying the scope of reservation is not restricted to employment and education but extends to local body elections.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Brahmin and married a male belonging to the Namdev community, which is classified as a backward community. She filed her nomination for the election to the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior for the seat reserved for backward communities in Ward No. 50 and was declared elected. The defeated candidate filed an election petition challenging her eligibility on the ground that she did not belong to a backward class by birth. The District Judge held that her nomination was wrongly accepted and set aside her election. The High Court confirmed the decision of the District Judge and observed that the circular dated 12.3.1997 was applicable to elections to local bodies.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly found that the appellant was not entitled to contest the reserved seat merely on the basis of her marriage to a person belonging to the backward community. The court was also correct in holding that the circular was not restricted to employment and admission but was applicable to elections to local bodies, in line with the decisions of this Court.
Issues:
Whether a person who does not belong to a backward class by birth can claim reservation in an election to a local body on the ground of marriage to a person belonging to that class; whether a circular issued by the Government clarifying the scope of reservation is applicable to elections to local bodies; and whether the High Court correctly applied the principles laid down in the precedents while deciding the election petition.
Ratio Decidendi:
Election to a seat reserved for a backward class or community is available only to individuals who belong to that class by birth and not through marriage; the scope of a Government circular clarifying reservation is not limited to employment and educational institutions but extends to local body elections; the High Court has the power and duty to apply the principles of statutory and constitutional law in election petitions and its decision is binding if it correctly interprets the provisions.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
(A) The constitutional provisions including Article 15(4), Article 16(4), Article 320, Article 330, and Article 332 read with Sections 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act form the legal framework governing reservations in local body elections and the conduct of election petitions. The statutory scheme contemplates that reservations for backward classes in local body elections are to be enjoyed only by individuals who belong to those classes by birth, and the protection of reservation cannot be extended through mechanisms such as marriage. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 through a writ petition, is mandated to examine whether the principles laid down in this Courts precedents and statutory provisions have been correctly applied by the adjudicating authorities. The circular issued by the State Government clarifying the scope of reservation and its applicability to elections to local bodies is a relevant administrative instrument that must be considered by the courts in determining the eligibility of a candidate. The courts analysis of the election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act involves a determination of whether the candidate fulfilled the essential conditions precedent to claiming reservation.
(B) The core legal principles are that eligibility for reservation in local body elections is determined by birth and not by marriage; the decision of the High Court under Article 226 is binding if it correctly applies the principles of statutory interpretation and precedent; and a circular clarifying the scope of reservation is not restricted to employment and education but extends to local body elections.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Brahmin and married a male belonging to the Namdev community, which is classified as a backward community. She filed her nomination for the election to the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior for the seat reserved for backward communities in Ward No. 50 and was declared elected. The defeated candidate filed an election petition challenging her eligibility on the ground that she did not belong to a backward class by birth. The District Judge held that her nomination was wrongly accepted and set aside her election. The High Court confirmed the decision of the District Judge and observed that the circular dated 12.3.1997 was applicable to elections to local bodies.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly found that the appellant was not entitled to contest the reserved seat merely on the basis of her marriage to a person belonging to the backward community. The court was also correct in holding that the circular was not restricted to employment and admission but was applicable to elections to local bodies, in line with the decisions of this Court.
Issues:
Whether a person who does not belong to a backward class by birth can claim reservation in an election to a local body on the ground of marriage to a person belonging to that class; whether a circular issued by the Government clarifying the scope of reservation is applicable to elections to local bodies; and whether the High Court correctly applied the principles laid down in the precedents while deciding the election petition.
Ratio Decidendi:
Election to a seat reserved for a backward class or community is available only to individuals who belong to that class by birth and not through marriage; the scope of a Government circular clarifying reservation is not limited to employment and educational institutions but extends to local body elections; the High Court has the power and duty to apply the principles of statutory and constitutional law in election petitions and its decision is binding if it correctly interprets the provisions.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.—The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Barhmin. She married one Naresh Kumar Thakur who is a Namdev by caste. In the election to the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior, the appellant filed her nomination for election for the post of a Corporator for Ward No. 50, a ward reserved for backward communities. The appellant was declared elected. The defeated candidate - the respondent herein challenged the election of the appellant in an Election Petition. The District Judge held that the nomination paper of the appellant was wrongly accepted and that her election was liable to be set aside since she could not contest the seat reserved for backward communities. The appellant filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court after consideration of the relevant aspects confirmed the decision of the District Court. The court overruled the contention of the appellant that the Circular dated 12.3.1997 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh was restricted to employment or admission alone and did not apply to elections to local bodies. The High Court also noticed the decisions of this Court in Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University and others (1996(3) SCC 545), N.E. Horo vs. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh (AIR 1972 SC 1840) and Kailash Sonkar vs. Smt. Maya Devi (AIR 1984 SC 600).
2. In the light of the decision in Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University and others (supra) and our decision rendered today in Civil Appeal Nos. 4413-14 of 2003, which were heard along with this appeal, it must be held that the appellant, who by birth did not belong to a backward class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that the appellant was entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward community merely because of her marriage to a person belonging to the Namdev community or caste. We also see no reason to differ from the High Court in its view that the Circular dated 12.3.1997 was not restricted in its operation to employment and admission to an educational institution, but was also relevant and applicable in elections to local bodies. It is, thus, found that both the reasons given by the High Court for affirming the decision of the District Judge setting aside the election of the appellant are sustainable. In view of this we have no hesitation in confirming the decision of the High Court and in dismissing this appeal. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.