PETITIONER: SHRI A. CHINNAPPA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI V. VENKATAMUNI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BHARUCHA S.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) CITATION: 1996 SCC (3) 585 JT 1996 (4) 213 1996 SCALE (3)389 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellant had contested election fram 72
Bethamangala Assembly Constitueney of Karnataka State
Legislature as reserved candidate The appellant claimed the
status of Mundala which is a recognised Scheduled Caste
notified by the Pregident of India in exercise of power
under Article 341 [1l of the Constitution. He contested the
said election on that basis and stood elected. When an
election pSetitlon was laid by the first respondents the
High Court found that the caste to which the appellant
belongs is Mondy/Mondigaru. The High Court on the basis Of
evidence on record found that the appellant, in fact,
belongs t.o Mondy/Mondigaru caste which was not recognised
as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential notification There
fore the High Court declared by the impugned order dated
April 30,1987 passed in Election petition No.21 of 1985 that
his elections to the Assembly constituency allotted to thee
Scheduled Caste was not valid in law. Thus this appeal.
The question before us is. whether the status of the
appe11ant who is a Mondy/Mondigaru, can be considered as
Mundala – a Scheduled Caste synonym, for the purpose of
election to the Legistative Assembly? Article 341 reads
thus:s
“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 notifications, 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,
rece or tribe, but save as
aforesaid a notification issued
under the said clause shall not be
varied by any, subsequent
notification”.
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the
President may, with respect to any State or Union Territory,
after consu1tarion with the Governor, 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. Under clause [2] thereof the Parliament has
been empowered by law either to include in or exclude from
the list of Scheduled Castes specified by the President
under clause [1] of Article 341 any caste, race or tribe or
part of or group within any caste, race or tribes. Once the
Parliament by law includes in or excludes from any race,
caste, tribe, parts of or groups within any caste, race or
tribes, the President thereafter shall have no power to vary
by any subsequent notification the said caste, race, tribe
or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe. Thus it
could be seen that since the caste Mondy/Mondigaru does not
admittedly find place in the notification issued by the
President or as amended by the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribes [Amendment Order] Act, 1976, the status of the
appellant as Mundala cannot be considered to be synonymous
of or equivalent to Mondy/Mondigaru as claimed by the
appellant. This Court in a recent judgment in NItyanand
Sharma v. State of Bihar [JT 1996 (2) SC 117] has considered
the scope of the power of the Court to declare the entries
of the Presidential notification under Article 342 [1] and
had held that no court has power to give such a declaration.
The limited scope of enquiry is whether the caste claimed by
the candidates finds place in the notification of the
President as amended under the Act. The High Court,
therefore, was right in its conclusion that the appellant
cannot have the status of Scheduled Caste to contest the
said Legislative Assembly election. The learned counsel for
the appellant has relied upon Revenue Officer & Ors. v.
Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 162]. In that case,
admittedly Dhoba is one of the castes recognised by the
President as Schedule Caste in relation to the State of
Orissa. Since the appellant tharein claimed the status as a
Rajaka in one of the sale deeds, it was sought to deny him
the benefits conferred on Scheduled Castes. This Court had
held that since the President has notified Dhoba to be
Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Orissa, merely
because he described himself to be a Rataka in one of the
sale deeds, his status as a Scheduled Caste is not taken
away by such description. The ratio therein has no
applicatin to the facts in this case.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.