1964 (10) TMI 101 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Respondent No. 1 to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices by Respondent No. 1.
3. Evidence of conversion to Buddhism by Respondent No. 1.
4. Legal interpretation of "professing a religion" under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Respondent No. 1 to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes:
The primary issue was whether Respondent No. 1, having embraced Buddhism, was still eligible to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The Tribunal concluded that Respondent No. 1 had embraced Buddhism and thus was ineligible, setting aside his election. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the conversion was not established by evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence and circumstances, disagreed with the High Court and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, confirming that Respondent No. 1 had indeed ceased to be a Hindu and was therefore ineligible.

2. Allegations of corrupt practices by Respondent No. 1:
The appellant alleged that Respondent No. 1 was guilty of several corrupt practices. The Tribunal found that these allegations were not substantiated, and this finding was not contested further in the High Court or Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue of corrupt practices did not influence the final judgment.

3. Evidence of conversion to Buddhism by Respondent No. 1:
The appellant provided evidence from multiple witnesses (P.W. 9 Ramrattan Janorkar, P.W. 2 Akant Mate, P.W. 5 Devaji Bhagat, and P.W. 10 Wasudeo Dongre) who testified about the mass conversion event and Respondent No. 1's participation. The Tribunal found this evidence credible, while the High Court dismissed it, citing potential bias due to political affiliations. The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence consistent and credible, noting Respondent No. 1's involvement in subsequent Buddhist activities, such as signing a declaration of conversion, issuing wedding invitations with Buddhist symbols, and converting a Shiva temple into a Buddha temple. These actions corroborated the witnesses' testimonies, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that Respondent No. 1 had indeed embraced Buddhism.

4. Legal interpretation of "professing a religion" under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950:
The Supreme Court analyzed the term "profess" as used in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and concluded that it implies an open declaration or practice of a religion. The Court held that a public declaration of conversion to another religion, such as Buddhism, would suffice to show that an individual no longer professes the Hindu religion. The Court rejected the argument that the term "Hindu" in the Order should include Buddhists, noting that the specific mention of Sikhs in the Order implies a narrower interpretation of "Hindu" as referring to orthodox Hinduism.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a Hindu by embracing Buddhism and was therefore ineligible to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Tribunal's decision was restored. Respondent No. 1 was ordered to bear the costs throughout.