PETITIONER: BHAIYA RAM MUNDA Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1970 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA CITATION: 1971 AIR 2533 1971 SCR (1) 804 ACT: Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)order, 1950, Part III--When evidence admissible for finding the scope of an entry in Order--Some sub-tribes under an entry included--Whether other sub-tribes deemed excluded--Effect of admission by member of Scheduled Tribe that he was not a member of the tribe. HEADNOTE: In Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 1950, issued by the President of India under Art. 342, Munda is specified as a scheduled tribe, but not Patar. The first respondent was a Patar. He was declared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from a scheduled tribes constitu- ency. The appellant, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed an election petition for setting aside the election on the ground that the first respondent was not a member of a scheduled tribe. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the first respondent was a Munda and was hence a member of a scheduled tribe. In appeal to this Court, HELD: (1) Evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean, but not so as to modify the order by including other tribes. Since the first respondent's case was not that Patars are a distinct community who are regarded as Mundas but that Patars are Mundas, evidence may be given to show that the entry Munda includes Patars. [814 B-C; 815 A] B. Basavalingappa v. Munichinnappa, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 316, Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh & Ors. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877, Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa Jamappanna JUDGMENT:
C.A.No. 1622/67 dt. 21-5-1968, referred to.
(2) Whether a particular person is a member of a scheduled
tribe so declared by the President is essentially a
question of law. Though an admission made by him expressly
or by implication that he is not a member of a scheduled
tribe is evidence against him. in an election petition, the
evidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C]
(3) If a member of a scheduled tribe, transfers property by
a deed in which he describes himself to be not a member of
the scheduled tribe in order to avoid refusal of
registration under s. 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, he
will not, on that account, be disentitled to claim the
status of a member of scheduled tribe. It could not be
said, on that ground alone, that the transferor was not a
member of a scheduled tribe or was estopped from setting up
that status. [808 D-E]
(4) The evidence in the case established that Patars are a
sub-tribe of Mundas and that they are not different from
Mundas. [813 F-G]
(5) If Patars are Mundas, because some sub-tribes of Mundas
arc
805
enumerated in the Presidential Order and others are not, no
inference will arise that those not enumerated are not
Mundas. Merely because Patars are not specifically
mentioned in the Presidential order, they cannot be on that
account alone be excluded from the general heading of Munda.
[813 G-H]
&
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2039 of 1969.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 19, 1969
of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.9 of 1969.
D. Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant.
K. K. Sinha, S. Thakur Prasad and S. S. Jauhar, for
respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. At the “mid-term elections” held in January 1969
Anirudh Patar (the 1st respondent in this appeal) was
declared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the
Tamar Assembly Constituency No. 296 (Scheduled Tribes).
Bhaiya Ram Munda-an unsuccessful candidate at the election-
applied to the High Court of Patna for an order setting
aside the election on the plea that the 1st respondent was
not a member of a scheduled tribe and was on that account
not qualified under s. 5 of the Representation of the People
Act. 1951 to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative
Assembly of Bihar from a reserved constituency for scheduled
tribes. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that
the 1st respondent was a member of a Scheduled Tribe called
“Munda” specified in Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order,- 1950 issued in exercise of the powers under
Art. 342 of the Constitution. Bhaiya Ram Munda has appealed
to this Court under s. II 6A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951.
Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
provides:
“A person shall not be qualified to be chosen
to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of
a State–unless–
(a) in the case of a seat reserved for the
Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes
of that State, he is a member of any, of those
castes or of these tribes, as, the case may
be, and is an
806
elector for any Assembly constituency in that
State;
Article 342 of the Constitution, insofar as it
is relevant, provides
“(1) The President may with respect to any
State or Union territory,….. by public noti-
fication, specify the tribes or tribal
communities Or parts of or groups within
tribes or tribal communities which shall for
the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to
be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State
or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may be law include in or
exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes
specified in a notification issued under
clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or
part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause
shall not be varied by any subsequent
notification.”
In exercise of the powers conferred by Art.
342, the President issued an Order called the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
which by the second clause provided :
The tribes or tribal communities, or parts of.
or groups within, tribes or tribal
communities-specified in Parts I to XII of the
Scheduled to this Order shall, in relation to
the States to which those Parts respectively
relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so
far as regards members thereof resident in the
localities specified in relation to them
respectively in those Parts of that
Schedule.,,
In the Schedule the names of certain tribes are set out, and
in Part III under the heading the State of Bihar, are
designated certain tribes. The tribes designated in Part
III are deemed to be Scheduled Tribes throughout the State
of Bihar. Mundas does but Patar does not occur in Part M.
The 1st respondent contended that Patars are Mundas, and
that it is only non-Mundas who call the various exogenous
groups belonging to the tribes residing generally in
Singbhum and the adjacent area and belonging to various
kilis as Mundas, or Pator Mundas, Mahal; Mundas, Tamarks,
Bunduars and Marang Mundas and others. He contended that
he does not cease to be a Munda merely because his family
name is Patar.
The appellant raised two arguments in support of his peti-
tion-(1) that Patars are not Mundas and (2) that even if
807
patars are Mundas, since the name of Patar has not be
included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950,
Part III applicable to Bihar, he cannot be chosen to sit in
the Assembly from the reserved constituency by merely
calling himself a Munda.
Considerable evidence oral and documentary was tendered
before the High Court. In support of his’ case the
appellant. relied upon-(1) a sale deed executed by the 1st
respondent on January 11, 1969 which recited that the 1st
respondent did not claim the status of a member of a
Scheduled Tribe; (2) entries in the revenue records and (3)
oral evidence of witnesses who deposed that the 1st
respondent was not a Munda.
In support of his case the 1st respondent relied upon-(1) a
judgment of the High Court of Patna declaring that Patars
are Mundas; (2) Khatian entries in which Patars were entered
as Mundas (3) a certificate dated July 15, 1941 given by
Rai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy (many years before the date on
which the dispute arose certifying that one Kshetra Mohan
Patar son of Gobardhan Patar of village Kumar Hapa, than&
Tamar, District Ranchi belonged to the Patar (Munda) tribe;
and (4) oral testimony of the witnesses who deposed that
the, 1st respondent was a Munda.
The name of the first respondent was entered in the voters’
list as a member of a Scheduled Tribe. The first
respondent stood as a candidate for election to the Bihar
State Legislative Assembly in 1962, and was elected from the
Scheduled Tribe constituency. Nomination was filed by him
at that election as a Patar. In 1967 too the first
respondent stood from the Tamar Scheduled Tribe Constituency
for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly but he was
defeated. It also appears from the record that Mr. Jaipal
Singh who was also a Patar was elected as a member of the
Parliament to a reserved seat from a constituency in the
Bihar State, was a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
The first question to be determined is whether Patars are
not Mundas : The appellant placed strong reliance upon a
sale deed executed by the first respondent can January 11,
1969 (few days before the elections) conveying property and
declaring therein that the first respondent was not a member
of any Scheduled Caste or backward community. Under s. 46
of, the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act VT of 1908 without the
sanction of the Deputy Commissioner the members of the
Scheduled Tribes cannot transfer their lands. It is common
ground that to the area of the Tamar Constituency that Act
applied. A deed evidencing sale of land presented for
registration by a member of a scheduled Tribe
808
could not be registered unless the sale was sanctioned by
the Deputy Commissioner. According to the first respondent
it was the vender who inserted into the deed the statement
in order to avoid refusal of )registration by the
authorities. Assuming that the statement was incorporated
in the deed with the consent of the first respondent no
estoppel arises against him. Whether a particular person is
a member of a Scheduled Tribe so declared by the President
under Art. 342 of the Constitution is essentially a question
of law. Though an admission made by him expressly or by
implication that he is not a member-of a Scheduled Tribe is
evidence against him in an election petition, the evidence
is not conclusive.
Khatian entries Exts. 1/a and 1/b show that sale deeds exe-
cuted by Patars were admitted to registration and mutation
entries were posted pursuant thereto. There is no evidence
whether in respect of those sale beads permission of the
Deputy Commissioner was taken before they were executed. It
is not possible to infer from the revenue entries that
sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was not obtained or that
Patars are not Mundas. Granting that the prohibition
contained in S. 46 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act was
violated by a member of a Scheduled Tribe, he will not on
that account be disentitled to claim the status of a member
of a schedule tribe. The transactions of sale may be void,
but it cannot be said, relying.on that ground alone, that
the transferor was not member of a Scheduled Tribe or was
estopped from setting up that status. Exts. 1(g) and 1(h)
are sale deeds executed by Mundas and sanction of the Deputy
Commissioner was obtained before execution of the sale
deeds. Exhibits 4 and 4 (a) are certified copies of two
raiyat, Khatians in which the caste of the tenants who were
Patars is mentioned as Patar, but from that also no
inference arises that they are a tribe distinct from Mundas.
The oral evidence led on behalf of the appellant is uncon-
vincing. Faud Singh Munda P.W. I asserted that Patras are
not a branch of the Munda Tribe, but they are a separate
caste. According to him Patars could convey. their property
without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, that
Pahans perform ceremonies in the families of Mundas, but
Brahmins assisted by barbers perform religious ceremonies in
the families of Patars, that Mundas do not offer Find in
Shradh, Patars do offer; that the Sun is the supreme deity
for the Mundas but Patars worship Rama and Krishna; and
that Mundas celebrate Sarbul festival, but Patars do not.
In cross-examination he stated that he has never attended
any Patar marriage ceremony or Shradh and that he had not
seen any Patar. offering any Find but had only heard about
it, The witness was unable to say how Patars
809
performed the puja. It appeared that he had not much
information even about Munda customs and ceremonies.
The statement of Gandharb Singh Munda P.W. 2 in examination-
in-chief was similar to the testimony of P.W. 1 In cross-
examination the witness stated that Mundas were (not Gonds
but they were “a separate caste” and that he had never
attended a Patar marriage ceremony and was never invited by
any Patar on the occasion of Shradh. He admitted ” that
non-Mundas also celebrated Sarbul. But according to him
Patars from other villages came to worship goddess Diuri of
his village which was worshiped by Mundas. He did not
appear to be competent to speak about the customs and usages
of Patars as distinguished from those of Mundas. The
witness did not know that those who are generally called
Mundas are in reality Komput Mundas.
Sudhir Kumar Choudhury P.W. 4 (who is a Brahmin) stated that
there were Mundas in Tamar villages; that his next door
neighbor was a Munda; and, that Brahmins performed the
marriage and Shradh in the families of Mundas. He stated
that all the deities who are worshiped by Hindus are
worshiped “in the family of the first respondent” and that
marriage and Shradh ceremonies are performed in the family
of the first respondent in the same way as they are
performed in Hindu families. The witness admitted that he
had not personally seen the performance of Puja of Rama and
Krishna in the house of the first respondent. The High
Court observed that the answers given by the witness in his
cross-examination indicated that he had no familiarity with
the customs of Mundas.
Abhimanyu Singh Munda P.W. 5 stated that the first respon-
dent was a Patar by caste and the customs of marriage and
Shradh amongst the Mundas and Patars were different. In
cross-examination he said that in the area within the Tamar
Police Station Mundas speak Mundari whereas Patars speak
Panch Pargania. This, was however, plainly contrary to what
the other witnesses had stated. He said that there was only
one family of Patars in his village; that he was invited by
that family on the occasions of marriage and Shradh, and
that he did not know the Gotra of that family. He further
stated that all the scheduled tribes of Chhota Nagpur drink
Hanria but the witness denied that the Patars drink Hanria.
In the view of the High Court, reliance could not be placed
upon the testimony of this witness. We see no reason to
disagree with it.
P.W. 6 is the appellant himself. He repeated what was
stated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. He asserted that Patars
do not belong to a Scheduled Tribe, He admitted however
that
810
he had never attended any ceremony of marriage or Shradh or
any other function in a Patar family and that he could not,
competently speak about the ceremonial customs of Patars.
He also denied that the son of P.W. I was an employee of the
Seva Mandal, a fact which was admitted by P.W. 1.
The first respondent has relied in support of his case upon
Exts. A,, B, B/1 & C. Exhibit A is the certificate issued
by Rai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy certifying one Kshetra
Mohan Patar as belonging to the Patar (Munda) tribe.
Exhibits B and B/ 1 are entries in the Khatian and Ext. C
is the judgment delivered by Ahmad, J., of the Patna High
Court in a case relating to the acceptance of Patars as
Mundas.
Kshetra Mohan Patar R.W. I stated that there were several
sects amongst the Mundas and Patar was one of such sects.
The witness further stated that Pahans Officiate as priests
at the time of marriage in the families of all the sub-
castes of Mundas and Brahmins do not officiate as priests
on such occasions; that Patars also bury the bones of such
dead bodies which are burnt at a place called Susan or
Hargaddi and that they also worship the Sun and other
deities worshiped by Mundas. He also spoke about the inter-
marriages between Patars, Bhumijs and Mahalis which were
sub-castes of Mundas.
Daroo Pahan R.W. 2 is not a Patar but a Munda. He stated
that Khangars and Patars are sub-castes of Mundas, that
some boys of Mundas of his village had married Patar girls,
that those boys with their Patar wives were living in his
village. He also said that Puja was performed by his
brother, when Barats of Mundas returned to the village with
Patar wives. He gave details about the names of some of the
Patar girls married to Munda boys in his village.
Jamir Munda R.W. 3 said that he had married a Patar girl;
and that there were two main branches’ of Mundas-one
consisting of Patars, Khangars and Mahalis and the other
consisting of Babuans. Mundas and Kol Mundas, and except
Babuans others inter-married among themselves. He stated in
cross-examination that Patar is merely a title and not a
sub-caste.
Khudi Ram Munda R.W. 4 stated that there were two main
branches of Mundas-one consisting of Mundas, Patars,
Khangars and Mahalis. and the other consisting of Mankis,
Thakurs Bahuans and Mundaris; that Pahans officiated as
priests on the occasion of marriages in the family of Patars
and Patars also Derfomed Sarna Pula and celebrated Sarbul
festival; that his nephew had married the daughter of a
Patar and-that his
811
present wife was also a Patar. In cross-examination he
admitted that those Patars who were rich called Brahmins to
perform Puja etc. on ceremonial occasions.
Ram Jatan Patar R.W. 5 stated that in the Khatian the caste
of his father was entered as Patar Munda. He further
stated that the daughter of his nephew Satya Narain was
married with the nephew of Khudi Ram Munda.
Raghunath Munda R.W. 6 stated that there were two branches
of Mundas-Mundas and Patar Mundas. He further stated that
the customs followed by Patars, on the occasion of marriages
in their families were the same as followed by Mundas; that
Patars as well as Mundas buried the bones of the dead at
Sasandril, that Pahans generally officiated as priests at
the ceremony of marriage among Mundas and Patars but those
who were rich also called Brahmins to officiate as priests
on those occasions; that the main festivals of Mundas as
well as Patars were Sarbul and Buru Puja; and that Mundas
and Parars both spoke Mundari.
Bahadur Patar R.W. 7 gave similar testimony.
Harihar Singh Munda R.W. 9 supported the testimony of
witnesses R.Ws. 3 & 4. He spoke about the various sects of
the Mundas and also about the prevalence of some customs
relating to marriages and other ceremonies of Patars and
Mundas.
Kumar Amarendra Nath Sah Deo R.W. 10 stated that in the
marriages in the families of Mundas and Patars generally
Pahans officiated as priests; that those who were rich also
invited Brahmin’s on the occasion and there were inter-
marriages between Patars and other branches of the Mundas.
He also spoke about the custom of burying the bones of the
deceased members in the families of Patars.
The first respondent R.W. II stated that his name was
entered in the voters’ list prepared in 1960, that he was
elected to the Bihar State Legislative Assembly in the
elections held in 1962 and that he lost in the elections of
1967. He also corroborated the statements of his witnesses
relating to the customs of Mundas and’ has asserted that
Patars are Mundas.
Dr. Sachchidananda R.W. 8 is a renewed anthropologist. He
has made a study of tribal culture in Bihar and has written
several books on anthropology. In his book “Profiles of
Tribal Culture in Bihar” and in his articles on Mundas in
Bihar he has stated that Patars are Mundas. He confirmed
that opinion on the basis of anthropological studies,
812
Dr, Sarat Chandra Roy in his publication “Mundas and this
Country” at p. 400 has observed :
“The Munda tribe is divided into a large
number of exogamous groups called kilis.
According to Munda tradition, all the members
of the same kili are descended from one common
ancestor. But such a tradition may not be
quite correct with regard to the original
kilis. Though exogamous as regards the kilis,
the Mundas are endogamous so far as other
tribes are concerned. Thus, there can now be
no valid marriages, according to Munda custom,
between a Munda and the member of any other
Kolarian’ tribe, such as the Santals,
Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy has then referred to the
various sub-tribes known as Bhumij-Mundas,
Khangars and observed
“In Parganas Bundu and Tamar, these Khangar
Mundas are known as Patar Mundas, in parts of
Kunti Thana as Mahli Mundas, in Singbhum as
Tamarias, in Gangpur as Bunduars and in
Pargana Balkaddi by the significant name of
Marang Mundas.”
In his “Profiles of Tribal Culture in Bihar”
Dr. Sachchidananda has said at p. 40 :
“The entire Munda tribe consists of an elder
and younger branch, the Mahali Mundako and the
Kompat Mundako respectively. The former are
found mainly in Tamar Pargana of the Ranchi
District and are also known as Patar.
Ordinarily Munda or those belonging to the
younger branch form the bulk of the Munda
population. Both these branches are
endogamous. The former are considered
socially inferior to the latter.”
The author then stated at p. 41
“In Tamar area the social stratification among
the Munda has reached a developed form. Six
distinct classes or castes may be
distinguished. These may be grouped into two
viz. (a) the Zamindars or landlords and (b)
the tenants. In group A we have at the top,
landlords called Thakur who hold above fifteen
villages each. Next come Manki who are lesser
landlords holding upto ten or eleven villages
each. In group B are the Mundari who are Munda
tenants. Intermarriage between Mundari and
the above mentioned four classes is well nigh
impossible due to great disparity in economic
and social status. At the bottom
813
of the Munda society in Tamar are the Patar
who belong to the Mahali-Mundako branch of the
tribe. Though they hold small bits of land
there is no social intercourse between them
and the upper five groups. Not only is
intermarriage unthinkable but even water
cannot be taken from the hands of a Patar.”
Patars are it appears regarded as the lowest in the social
order amongst the Mundas but they are still Mundas.
In Encyclopedia Mundarica by Rev. John Hoffman in
collaboration with Rev. Arthur Van Emelen, VoL IX, at p.
2881 it is stated that “Munda is a name which has been given
to the Mundas by the Hindus” and is exclusively used by all
but the Mundas themselves. Under the heading Munda are given
the names of different-sub-tribes of the Mundas one of which
is Mahdli. At p. 2756in the same book after the head
“Mahali” it is said that a Mahali is a Munda of the elder
branch. The author then proceeded to say that the Mahalis
are also called Tamadias especially by Hindus and in Chota-
Nagpur they are called Khangars. In Tamar they are called
Pators. The Mundari they speak is characterized by a great
number of vocal checks. They have practically all the clans
(kilis) found amongst the Mundas.
The evidence given on behalf of the first respondent is
amply supported by studies made by distinguished
anthropologists. The first respondent was without any
objection recorded in the voters’ list as a member of the
Scheduled Tribe. He was elected in 1962 from a scheduled
tribe constituency. He again contested the elections from
that constituency in 1967 but he was defeated. It is only in
4969 when at the fresh elections that he contested the seat
and was declared elected when an objection was raised that
he did not belong to a scheduled tribe. On a consideration
of all the evidence we are of the view that Patars are a
sub-tribe of Mundas and that they are not different from
Mundas.
The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the appel-
lant has also no substance. It is true that in Part III of
the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950 issued under Art. 342 of the Constitution the name
“Munda” is mentioned and similarly the names of other sub-
tribes amongst Mundas are mentioned. Counsel for the
appellant contended that if according to Dr. Sachchidanand
Mahalis, Ho, Bhumijs, Asur, Baiga, and Khangars are Mundas,
specific mention of some of those tribes in the Schedule
Tribes Order clearly indicated that Patars who are not
mentioned therein are not a Scheduled Tribe within the
meaning of the Order. There is however no
814
warrant for that view. If Patars are Mundas, because some
sub-tribes of Mundas are enumerated in the Order and others
are not, no inference will arise that those not enumerated
are not Mudas. We are unable to hold that because Patars
are not specifically mentioned in the List they cannot be
included in the general heading Munda.
Decisions in support of the contention that the Courts
cannot allow evidence, to be taken for proving that certain
classes of people though not expressly designated in the
Presidential Order were intended to be covered by the Order
may be briefly referred to. It may suffice to state however
that it is not the case of the first respondent that Patars
are a distinct community, but that they should be regarded
as Mundas because of the similarity of customs, religious
beliefs, forms of worship and other social obligations.
In B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa (1) the relevant
facts were that M who was elected from a Scheduled Castes
constituency claimed to belong to the Bhovi caste which was
one of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued by the President under
Art. 341 of the Constitution. In an election petition it-
was claimed that M belonged to the Voddar caste which was
not mentioned in the Order and that on- that account M was
not entitled to stand for election from Scheduled Caste
constituency. Evidence was led before the Election Tribunal
that Bhovi was a sub-caste of the Voddar caste and as M did
not belong to the Bhovi sub-caste he could not stand for
election from the constituency. The High Court in appeal
held that although Voddar, caste was not included in the
Order, yet considering the facts and circumstances in
existence at the time when the Order was passed in 1950, the
Bhovi caste mentioned in the order was the same as the
Voddar caste. In appeal to this Court it was contended that
the High Court was wrong in considering the evidence and
then coming to the conclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned
in the Order was meant for the caste Voddar and that the
Tribunal’ should have declined to allow evidence to be
produced which would have the effect of modifying the Order
issued by the President. This Court held that the evidence
clearly showed that in 1950 when the Order was passed there
was no caste in the then Mysore State which was known as
Bhovi and the Order could not have intended to recognise a
caste which did not exist. It was therefore necessary to
find out which caste was meant by the use of the name Bhovi
and for that purpose evidence was rightly recorded by the
Tribunal and acted upon by the High Court. This Court
accordingly confirmed the, view of the High
[1965] 1 S. C. R. 316.
315
Court. The decision in this case lends no support to the
contention that evidence is inadmissible for the- purpose of
showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended
to mean.
The next case in the order of sequence is Bhaiyalal v.
Harikishan Singh and Others.(1) In that case an election to
a State Legislature was challenged an the ground that the
successful candidate belonged to the Dohar caste which was
not recognised as Scheduled Caste for the district in
question, and on that ground the successful candidate was
not competent to stand for election. The Election Tribunal
declared the election invalid and the finding was confirmed
on appeal by the High Court. It was hold by this Court that
the plea that the appellant is not a Chamar, and as such, he
could- not claim the status of a Chamar claiming that he
belonged to Dohar Caste which is a sub-caste, of the Chamar
caste and that an enquiry of the kind would not be
permissible having regard to the provisions contained in
Art. 341 of the Constitution. It was urged in that case
that Chamars were recognised as a Scheduled Caste but not
the Dohar. The successful candidate was, it was found, a
Dohar and was not a Chamar. The Court declined to allow a
plea to be raised that Dohars were in some areas recognised
as a sub-caste of Chamars. The contention was plainly
futile, once it was held that the candidate was not a Chamar
in the constituency to which the Order related and Dehars
were not a Scheduled )Caste. The Court observed,that in
specifying castes, races or tribes under Art. 341 of the
Constitution, the President had been expressly authorised to
Emit the notification to parts of or groups within the
caste, race or tribe, and the President may well come to the
conclusion that not the whole caste, race, or tribe, but
parts of or groups within them should be specified.
Similarly the President can specify castes, races or tribes
or parts thereof in relation not only to the entire State,
but in relation to the parts of the State where he is
satisfied that the examination of the social and educational
backwardness of the races, caste or tribe justifies such
specification. On that view the Court upheld the decision
of the High Court that the successful candidate who was a
Dohar was not, in the Constituency from which the case arose
a Chamar within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950.
In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa jamappanna &
Ors.(2) an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Mysore
Legislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the
Scheduled Tribes filed an election petition alleging that
the other three candidates were Bedars a tribe not specified
in Part VIII para 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order,
(1) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877.
(2) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 805.
816
1950. The successful candidate asserted that he was a
Nayaka and the Nayakas were also called Bedars. The High
Court held that there was no Nayaka in the area and
successful candidate was a Bedar. This Court allowed the
appeal and held that Nayakas were to be found not only in
the districts of Mysore but also in Maharashtra and
Rajasthan. “This tribal community was therefore wide-
spread” and it was not possible to say that there was no
Nayaka in the district to which the appellant belonged. A
bare assertion by the election petitioner that the
appellant was a Bedar did not suffice to displace the
acceptance of the nomination paper or the claim of the
appellant that he was a Nayaka.
In the, present case it is not the contention of the first
respondent that he was a Patar-member of a tribe which is
not Munda, but he was recognized as a Munda. His case was
that in his tribe he was as a Munda Patar.
Attention may also be directed to a recent judgment of this
Court in, Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (1) In that case Dina
Narnavare was declared elected to the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly from the Armori Scheduled Tribes
constituency. His election was set aside on the application
filed by the first respondent on the ground that Dina was
not eligible to stand as a candidate from a reserved
constituency. Dina had declared in his nomination paper
that he was a member of the Gond (Mana) caste and the same
was a Scheduled Tribe in Taluka Gadchiroli of District
Chanda in the Maharashtra State and being a Gond though
styled as Mana he was entitled to the privileges given by
the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. This Court
on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion
that there was no sub-tribe of Maratha Manas among the
Gonds. It was found that the customs, manners, forms (A
worship and dress of the members of the Maratha Mana
community were all different from the customs, manners, form
of worship and dress of the Gonds. In that view the Court
held that Mana community amongst the Marathas could not be
regarded as Gond and the appellant was, not entitled to
stand for election as Gond. The decision clearly decides
that the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is not
decisive. Even if the tribe of a person is different from
the name included in the Order issued by the President, it
may be shown that the name is included in the Order is a
general name applicable to sub-tribes.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
(2) C. A. No. 1622 of 1957 decided on May, 21, 1968.
817
