2005 (1) TMI 753 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of the appellant to contest from a Scheduled Tribe reserved constituency.
2. The legitimacy of the appellant's claim to belong to the Bhagatha Community, a Scheduled Tribe.
3. The impact of the appellant's marriage to a member of the Bhagatha Community on her status.
4. The validity and effect of the community certificates issued to the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification of the appellant to contest from a Scheduled Tribe reserved constituency:
The appellant's election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sringavarapukota 28 S.T. Assembly constituency was challenged under the Representation of the People Act. The High Court upheld the challenge, ruling that the appellant was not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates as she did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe.

2. The legitimacy of the appellant's claim to belong to the Bhagatha Community, a Scheduled Tribe:
The primary question was whether the appellant belonged to the Bhagatha Community, a Scheduled Tribe, or to the Patnaik Sistu Karnam community, a forward community. The High Court concluded that the appellant was a Patnaik Sistu Karnam and not a member of the Bhagatha Community. This conclusion was based on evidence showing that the appellant's father, Murahari Rao, belonged to the Patnaik Sistu Karnam caste, and the appellant was born in lawful wedlock to Murahari Rao and Simhachalam. The High Court found no evidence to support the appellant's claim that her mother had an earlier marriage or that her father had married someone else, which could have impacted her caste status. The presumption of legitimacy arising from the long cohabitation of her parents further strengthened the conclusion that the appellant was legitimately a Sistu Karnam.

3. The impact of the appellant's marriage to a member of the Bhagatha Community on her status:
The appellant argued that her marriage to Appala Raju, a member of the Bhagatha Community, entitled her to be considered a member of that community. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that marriage to a member of a Scheduled Tribe does not confer the status of a Scheduled Tribe on a non-tribal. The court relied on the decision in Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) v. Cochin University and Ors., which held that a non-backward individual marrying into a backward community does not gain the benefit of reservation. The High Court found no evidence that the appellant's marriage followed the customary practices of the Bhagatha Community or that she was accepted as a member of that community.

4. The validity and effect of the community certificates issued to the appellant:
The appellant produced community certificates under The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993, to support her claim. The High Court dismissed these certificates, noting that they were issued without a proper inquiry and were influenced by the appellant's position as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The court emphasized that such certificates are not binding in elections to the Legislative Assembly or Parliament and can be independently scrutinized in an Election Petition. The High Court found that the certificates lacked credibility and did not alter the appellant's status.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the appellant's election was invalid. The court agreed with the High Court's findings on the appellant's caste status, the irrelevance of her marriage to a Scheduled Tribe member for electoral qualification, and the lack of probative value of the community certificates. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the court expressed dismay at the appellant's extreme measures to retain her legislative seat.