2010 (9) TMI 946 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the First respondent/Returned candidate suppressed the material fact that she belongs to Indian Christian Pallan Community as per her school records? Whether the First respondent/Returned candidate made a false declaration relating to her community status and school education in her nomination as belonging to scheduled caste? Whether the First respondent/Returned candidate converted herself to Hinduism in 1994 through the Arya Samaj, Madurai and whether the same was accepted by the Hindu Pallan Community? Whether the Election petitioner is entitled for a declaration that the election of the First respondent/Returned candidate is void on the ground that she was not qualified to contest the election in the Reserved Constituency? Whether the Election petitioner is entitled for a further declaration as duly elected as a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from No. 209, Rajapalayam (SC) Assembly Constituency, Tamil Nadu in the election held on 8.5.2006? To what other reliefs the petitioner is entitled to? Held that - Allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. Hence based purely on the evidence before this court and the observations made by us in this regard, the Election petitioner has not been able to prove conclusively that the appellant professes Christianity. The evidence produced is, contradictory and smacks of political rivalry.

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of material facts about community status.
2. False declaration in nomination papers.
3. Conversion to Hinduism and acceptance by the Hindu Pallan Community.
4. Qualification to contest in a reserved constituency.
5. Declaration of the next highest vote-getter as the successful candidate.
6. Reliefs entitled to the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression of Material Facts About Community Status:
The High Court framed the issue of whether the appellant suppressed material facts about her community status. The election petitioner argued that the appellant, originally a Christian, falsely claimed to belong to the Hindu Pallan community. The High Court found the circumstances of the issuance of the community certificate suspicious, noting it was issued within two days, likely due to political influence. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating the burden of proof lay on the election petitioner to prove the appellant's continued profession of Christianity, which was not satisfactorily established.

2. False Declaration in Nomination Papers:
The election petitioner contended that the appellant made a false declaration about her school education and community status. The appellant explained discrepancies in her nomination papers, attributing them to an error by her brother who assisted in filing the papers. The Supreme Court found this explanation plausible and held that the discrepancy did not render her ineligible to contest from the reserved constituency.

3. Conversion to Hinduism and Acceptance by the Hindu Pallan Community:
The appellant claimed to have converted to Hinduism through Arya Samaj in 1994. The High Court doubted the authenticity of the conversion certificate, as only a duplicate was produced. The Supreme Court emphasized that secondary evidence is admissible if primary evidence is genuinely unavailable. The appellant's consistent testimony and corroborating evidence from witnesses demonstrated her conversion and acceptance by the Hindu Pallan community. The Court noted that the appellant celebrated Hindu festivals, worshipped Hindu deities, and her marriage was conducted as per Hindu customs.

4. Qualification to Contest in a Reserved Constituency:
The High Court declared the appellant's election void, concluding she did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that the appellant had satisfactorily proved her conversion to Hinduism and acceptance by the community. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof was on the election petitioner, who failed to provide conclusive evidence that the appellant continued to practice Christianity.

5. Declaration of the Next Highest Vote-Getter as the Successful Candidate:
The High Court did not declare the next highest vote-getter as the successful candidate, stating that election law does not recognize such a recourse. The Supreme Court did not address this issue further, as it found the appellant's election valid.

6. Reliefs Entitled to the Petitioner:
The Supreme Court concluded that the election petitioner was not entitled to any reliefs, as the appellant had successfully rebutted the allegations against her. The evidence presented by the election petitioner was deemed insufficient and unreliable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The appellant's election was upheld, and no costs were awarded. The Court emphasized the need for clear and conclusive evidence in election petitions, underscoring the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.

← Previous Next →