Supreme Court holds that a Caste/Community Certificate cannot be assailed in an Election Petition: A. Raja vs. D. Kumar (2025) INSC 629 (06 May 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 06 May 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 629

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih

Imagine a scenario where someone’s election win is questioned not just on standard grounds, but also on the validity of their caste certificate. Can an election petition be the right place to challenge such a certificate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of A. Raja vs. D. Kumar, focusing on whether a caste certificate can be assailed in an election petition. The Court held that a Caste/Community Certificate cannot be challenged in an Election Petition. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih.

Case Background

In 2021, elections were held for the Devikulam Assembly Constituency in Kerala. A. Raja (the Appellant) filed his nomination, declaring that he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste, supported by a caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Devikulam. D. Kumar (the Respondent) raised objections, arguing that A. Raja was a Christian and not a member of the Scheduled Castes of Kerala. The Returning Officer rejected these objections and accepted A. Raja’s nomination.

During the election, A. Raja secured 59,049 votes and was declared elected, defeating D. Kumar, who received 51,201 votes. D. Kumar then challenged A. Raja’s election in Election Petition No. 11 of 2021 before the High Court. The primary ground for the challenge was that A. Raja’s paternal grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kerala in 1951 and were of the ‘Hindu Parayan’ caste in Tamil Nadu. Since they were migrants, they and their successors were not entitled to claim the ‘Hindu Parayan’ status in Kerala. Additionally, it was alleged that A. Raja was born to Christian parents and was baptized, making him ineligible to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala took up the Election Petition No. 11 of 2021. It framed issues, examined witnesses, and admitted documents. After considering the oral testimony and documentary evidence, the High Court declared the election of the Appellant void through the Impugned Judgment. The key issues before the High Court were:

• Whether the returned candidate is a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste among Hindus in the State of Kerala?
• Whether the acceptance of nomination of the returned candidate is proper?
• Whether the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside?
• Reliefs and cost.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several important legal provisions:

• Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section provides for appeals to the Supreme Court regarding orders made by a High Court under Section 98 or Section 99 of the same Act.
• Section 100(1)(a) and (d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: These clauses outline the grounds for declaring an election void. Specifically, Section 100(1)(a) deals with a candidate’s disqualification at the time of election, and Section 100(1)(d)(i) concerns the improper acceptance of a nomination.
• Article 341 of the Constitution of India, 1950: This article empowers the President to specify castes, races, or tribes that shall be deemed Scheduled Castes in relation to a state or union territory.
• The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950: Issued by the President of India, this order specifies the castes recognized as Scheduled Castes in various states.
• Section 10 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996: This section stipulates that the burden of proving one’s belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe lies on the claimant.

Article 341 of the Constitution of India, 1950 states:

‘341. Scheduled Castes .—(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.’

Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the central issue:

1. Whether a Caste/Community Certificate can be assailed in an Election Petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

• M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, (2010) 9 SCC 712: Burden of proof is on the Election Petitioner.
• Puducherry SC People Welfare Assn. v. UT of Pondicherry, (2014) 9 SCC 236: Interpretation of “resident” in the Presidential Order.
• Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, (1995) 5 SCC 347: Specificity of pleadings in an Election Petition.
• Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C. P. Joshi, (2011) 11 SCC 786: Specificity of pleadings in an Election Petition.
• Goka Ramalingam v. Boddu Abraham, (1969) 1 SCC 24: New contentions after the period of limitation.
• Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244: Definition of ‘Resident’ as ‘permanent resident’.
• K. P. Manu v. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate, (2015) 4 SCC 1: Doctrine of Eclipse.
• Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh, (2007) 3 SCC 617: Pleading material facts and particulars.
• Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233: Challenge to Caste Certificate in an Election Petition.
• Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, (2003) 8 SCC 204: Challenge to Caste Certificate in an Election Petition.
• Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, 1953 1 SCC 492: Ascertaining legislative intent.
• State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 44: Rule of construction noscuntur a sociis.
• Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, (1972) 2 SCC 442: Ejusdem generis rule.
• U.P.SEB v. Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16: Ejusdem generis rule.
• Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Limited v. CCE, (1990) 3 SCC 447: Noscitur a sociis principle.
• Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101: Sub silentio principle.
• State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139: Sub silentio principle.
• A-One Granites v. State of U.P., (2001) 3 SCC 537: Sub silentio principle.
• Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy, (2005) 2 SCC 244: Validity of certificates under the Andhra Pradesh Act.
• J. Chandrasekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 229: Election Petitions to be treated akin to criminal proceedings.
• Sapna Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 233: True intention of men lying behind their acts.
• Punjabrao v. D. P. Meshram, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 76: Meaning of the phrase “professes a religion”.
• Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241: Guidelines for issuance and scrutiny of caste certificates.
• Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333: Validity of directions issued in Madhuri Patil.
• Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670: Re-affirmed the guidelines laid down in Madhuri Patil.
• Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 16 SCC 415: Legislation would govern the field and not the Madhuri Patil guidelines.
• Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409: Exercise of constitutional powers.
• State of A.P. v. Abdul Khader, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 149: Citizenship Act.
• Ghaurul Hasan v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 315: Citizenship Act.
• Akbar Khan Alam Khan v. Union of India, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 416: Citizenship Act.
• Bhagwati Prasad Dixit v. Rajeev Gandhi, (1986) 4 SCC 78: Citizenship Act.
• Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST, (2005) 8 SCC 283: Election of a Scheduled Caste candidate.
• Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 INSC 804: Interplay between constitutional bars and the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court meticulously analyzed the legal framework and the arguments presented by both parties. The Court noted that the High Court erred in declaring the Appellant’s election void based on the challenge to his caste certificate in an election petition. The Supreme Court emphasized that the validity of a caste certificate should be determined through the mechanisms provided under the relevant state laws, such as the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, and not through an election petition.

The Court observed that the High Court had incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the Appellant to demonstrate that his family had migrated to Kerala before 1950. Instead, the burden was on the Respondent to prove that the Appellant’s caste certificate was invalid. The Supreme Court clarified that the challenge to the caste certificate should have been pursued through the appropriate channels, such as the Scrutiny Committee, as per the guidelines established in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241.

The Court also addressed the Respondent’s argument that the Appellant’s marriage according to Christian rituals and customs shifted the burden to the Appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, emphasizing that the primary issue was whether the Appellant belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste at the time of the election, and this should be determined based on the evidence and the relevant legal provisions.

Furthermore, the Court discussed the interpretation of the term “resident” in the context of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. While acknowledging that the term generally refers to a permanent resident, the Court emphasized that the determination of residency should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the caste certificate.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of statutory interpretation, including the rules of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, to determine the scope and meaning of the relevant provisions. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent should be ascertained based on the plain language of the statute, and the provisions should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the object and purpose of the legislation.

The Court distinguished the cases of Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 and Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, (2003) 8 SCC 204, which were relied upon by the Respondent to argue that a caste certificate can be challenged in an election petition. The Court clarified that those cases involved specific circumstances where the challenge to the caste certificate was directly related to the candidate’s qualification to contest the election, and they did not establish a general principle that a caste certificate can be assailed in an election petition.

The Court further held that the High Court’s reliance on the testimony of Ebenezer Mani, who allegedly baptized the Appellant’s parents in 1982, was misplaced. The Court noted that Ebenezer Mani was only 14 years old at the time, and his testimony was unreliable. The Court also observed that the Respondent had attempted to develop a new case during the examination of PW9, based on alleged tampering in a Baptism Register and Family Register, which was not properly pleaded or proved.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in declaring the Appellant’s election void based on the challenge to his caste certificate in an election petition. The Court emphasized that the validity of a caste certificate should be determined through the appropriate channels, such as the Scrutiny Committee, and not through an election petition.

The Court stated:

“32. Thus, the law laid down in Madhuri Patil (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court. Therefore, the High Court could not have gone into the question of the validity of the caste certificate in an Election Petition. The High Court has to deal with the issue within the four corners of the Act of 1951. As held by this Court in the case of J. Chandrasekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 229, an Election Petition is to be treated akin to criminal proceedings. Therefore, the High Court could not have embarked upon an enquiry regarding the validity of the caste certificate. The High Court has to deal with the issue within the four corners of the Act of 1951. As held by this Court in the case of J. Chandrasekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 229, an Election Petition is to be treated akin to criminal proceedings.”

“35. It is not even the case of the Respondent that the Appellant has obtained the caste certificate by playing fraud. The only allegation is that the Appellant is not a member of the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the High Court could not have gone into the question of the validity of the caste certificate in an Election Petition. The High Court has to deal with the issue within the four corners of the Act of 1951.”

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in declaring the election of the Appellant void. The Court reiterated that a Caste/Community Certificate cannot be assailed in an Election Petition.

Implications

This judgment clarifies the scope of election petitions and reinforces the principle that caste certificates should be challenged through the appropriate administrative and legal channels, rather than through election petitions. It upholds the integrity of the election process by ensuring that election petitions focus on election-related irregularities and not on the validity of caste certificates, which are subject to separate mechanisms for verification and challenge.

The decision also highlights the importance of adhering to the established legal framework for challenging caste certificates, as outlined in the relevant state laws and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241. It emphasizes that the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the caste certificate, and the challenge should be pursued through the appropriate channels, such as the Scrutiny Committee.

Furthermore, the judgment underscores the need for specificity in pleadings in election petitions and the importance of adhering to the established principles of statutory interpretation. It reinforces the principle that election petitions should be treated akin to criminal proceedings, and the High Court should deal with the issues within the four corners of the Act of 1951.

In summary, this judgment provides clarity and guidance on the scope of election petitions and the mechanisms for challenging caste certificates, thereby promoting fairness and transparency in the election process.