{"id":63176,"date":"1974-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974"},"modified":"2017-12-25T21:24:23","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T15:54:23","slug":"ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974","title":{"rendered":"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 420, \t\t 1975 SCR (2) 923<\/div>\n
Author: A Alagiriswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Alagiriswami, A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGANPAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRETURNING OFFICER & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/12\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  420\t\t  1975 SCR  (2) 923\n 1975 SCC  (1) 589\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1976 SC 939\t (11)\n R\t    1984 SC 600\t (29)\n\n\nACT:\nElection-Member of Scheduled Caste-Allegation that  returned\ncandidate became a convert to Buddhism-proof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  the election to the State Legislative Assembly  to\tfill\nLip a seat reserved for members of the scheduled castes from\nNagpur,\t the  second respondent was declared  elected.\t The\nappellant  challenged  the election. on\t the  ground,  inter\n'Ilia,\tthat  the  second respondent ceased to\tbe  a  Hindu\nhaving been converted to Buddhism.  The High Court dismissed\nthe election petition.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : (1) The second respondent was a well known Doctor  in\nNagpur,\t the appellant belonged to Nagpur and they  belonged\nto  scheduled castes before the second respondent's  alleged\nconversion  to\tBuddhism.  And yet, the\t appellant  has\t not\ngiven  the date, the place or the circumstances under  which\nthe second respondent became a convert to Buddhism.  Nor did\nthe  appellant\tobject at the time of the  scrutiny  of\t the\nnomination  papers.  that the second respondent\t was  not  a\nmember of the scheduled caste. [925 G-926 B, F-G]\n(2)  The second respondent was born a Hindu and was  married\naccording  to  Hindu  rites.   He  went\t to  England  on   a\nGovernment scholarship given to members of scheduled  castes\nto study Medicine.  If he was not a member of a\t scheduled\ncaste  he had run a risk of prosecution when he\t so  claimed\nfor getting the scholarship, and also ran a similar risk for\nperjury in the present case. [926 G-H]\n(3)  Merely because the nieces of the second respondent were\nmarried\t according  to Buddhist rites,\tthe  invitation\t for\ntheir  marriage\t was  in  the  Buddhist\t form,\tthe   second\nrespondent's name was printed as one of those joining in the\ninvitation, at the time of the marriage the pictures of\t Dr.\nAmbedkar and the Buddha were garlanded, and a Buddhist Bhiku\nofficiated  at the marriage, It could not be held  that\t the\nsecond respondent was a Buddhist. [927 A-D, E. G]\n(a)  The evidence shows that there is very little difference\nbetween\t a  wedding  according to  Buddhist  rites  and\t one\naccording  to Hindu rites.  Moreover, Buddhist's  rites\t are\nfollowed even where one of the parties to the marriage is  a\nnon-Buddhist,  and  there  is no  evidence  that  the  Hindu\npartner\t does not continue to profess  Hinduism\t thereafter.\n[927 D-E, 928 D-E]\n(b)  The   names  of  brothers\tare  included\tin   wedding\ninvitations under the lead \"With best compliments of\",\tvery\noften without their permission. [927 B-C]\n(c)  The  picture of Dr. Ambedkar might have been  garlanded\nbeCAUSE\t he  was held in great veneration by  the  Scheduled\ncastes.\t Therefore, merely because of the garlanding and the\nBuddhist  Bhiku\t officiating at the  marriage.\tthe  wedding\ncould  not be considered to be according to Buddhist  rites.\n[928 A- B]\n(4)  When  one\tis born a Hindu the fact that he goes  to  a\nBuddhist temple or a Church or Durga cannot be said to\tshow\nthat  he  is  no more a Hindu and that he  had\tchanged\t his\nreligion. [929 C-D]\n(5)  Also,  from the fact that Dr. and Mrs. Ambedkar  and  a\nlarge  number of people openly got themselves  converted  to\nBuddhism  it  does not follow that all the  members  of\t the\nscheduled castes followed in their foot steps. [929 B]\n(6)  Religion  is essentially a highly personal\t matter\t and\nHinduism  is  so tolerant and Hindu religious  practices  so\nvaried and eclectic that one would find it difficult to\t say\nwhether a person is practising or professing Hindu  religion\nor  not\t In such a matter, the open assertion by  a  person,\nespecially in\n924\neducated member of society. about the religion he  professes\nshould\tbe  given considerable weight  over  the  interested\ntestimony of others based upon stray instances. [929 C, 930\nF-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 348 of 1973.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th  November,
\n1972  of  the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)\tin  Election
\nPetition No. 1 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
L. M. Singhvi, M. C. Rajkarna,S. N. Ponikar, A. G.  Maneses,
\nK.   J. John and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
\nG.   L.\t Sanghi, S. B. Wad, B. U. Wahano and Jayashree\tWad,
\nfor respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
K.  L. Hathi and M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos.  21\t and\n<\/p>\n
22.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nALAGIRISWAMI,  J. In the election to the Maharashtra  Legis-
\nlative\tAssembly held in March 1972 to fill up a  seat\tfrom
\nthe  North Nagpur constituency reserved for members  of\t the
\nScheduled  Caste, the 2nd respondent was  declared  elected.
\nThe  appellant\tfiled an election petition  questioning\t the
\nelection.   That petition having been dismissed by the\tHigh
\nCourt of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) this appeal has been filed by
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
In  that  election  as\tmany  as  19  persons  filed   their
\nnomination   papers.\tNine  of   them\t  withdrew   leaving
\nrespondents 2 to 10 and the appellant in the field.  One  of
\nthem  who withdrew was the 11th respondent, Ranjit  Mesbram,
\nwith  whom we will have to deal later.\tIt the election\t the
\n2nd respondent obtained 22,993 votes, the appellant obtained
\n21,135\tvotes, the 6th respondent obtained 16,123 votes\t and
\nthe 9th respondent 2,590 votes.\t It is unnecessary to  refer
\nto  the\t other\trespondents or the votes  obtained  by\tthem
\nbecause the argument before this Court have been confined to
\nrespondents 2, 6 and 9. At many as 14 issues were framed for
\ndecision of which, as far as the arguments before this Court
\nare  concerned, only issues 9 and 1 survive.  They  are\t set
\nout below :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “9. (a)\t Was   the  notice   of\t  withdrawal
\n\t      (document\t No. 5) tendered by  the  respondent
\n\t      No. 11 to the Returning officer a valid one ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Did\t the notice of withdrawal  (document
\n\t      No.  6)  tendered by Shri S. P.  Ukey  in\t the
\n\t      prescribed  form cure the defect, if  any,  in
\n\t      the notice of withdrawal (document No. 6)) ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   Can these notices be said to lie legally
\n\t      tendered\tas  required by section\t 37  of\t the
\n\t      Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   If not, its effect ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   Has the acceptance of the withdrawal  of
\n\t      the  respondent No. 11 materially changed\t the
\n\t      election results ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      925<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      10. (a)\t Are the- respondents 2 and 4 to  IO
\n\t      converts\tto Buddhism and have  they  embraced
\n\t      and professed Buddhism and ceased to be Hindus
\n\t      ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   If so, were they eligible to contest the
\n\t      election from the Reserve Constituency ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   If not eligible, what is the effect ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   Did\t the candidature of  the  respondent
\n\t      No.  6, if he was disqualified on\t account  of
\n\t      the conversion to Buddhism, materially  affect
\n\t      and after the election results ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   What  is the effect of not\traising\t the
\n\t      objection\t  about\t the  eligibility   of\t the
\n\t      candidate\t at  the  time of  scrutiny  of\t the
\n\t      nominations ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  may\t be necessary to notice issue 13  also\tbecause\t the
\nappellant had prayed not only for setting aside the election
\nof  the\t 2nd  respondent but also  for\this  being  declared
\nelected\t from  the  constituency.  Issue 9  relates  to\t the
\nquestion  of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram to whom  reference
\nhas already been made.\tIssue 10 relates to the question as
\nto  whether  respondents 2 and 4 to 10 could be said  to  be
\nmembers\t of  the Scheduled Castes so as to  be\teligible  to
\nstand for election from this constituency.   Though  in\t the
\npetition the question was raised about respondents     2 and
\n4 to 10, even in the High Court only the question relating   to
\nrespondents  2, 6 and 9 was considered.\t Before\t this  Court
\nDr.  Singhvi  appearing for the appellant  concentrated\t his atten
\ntion  regarding\t the case of respondents 2 and\t6  and
\npreferred to leave the case of respondent 9 alone.  This  is
\nbecause\t next  to  the\trespondent  2  and  the\t  appellant,
\nrespondent 6 has got the largest number of votes.  Even\t the
\nquestion  regarding respondent 6 is only important from\t the
\npoint  of  view of the prayer in the election  petition\t for
\ndeclaring  the\tappellant elected after\t setting  aside\t the
\nelection  of the 2nd respondent.  If the 2nd  respondent  is
\nfound not to belong to a Scheduled Caste no further question
\nwill survive.  It is only if the 2nd respondent is found  to
\nbelong\tto a  Scheduled Caste that  the\t question  whether
\nrespondent 6 also is of is not a member of a Scheduled Caste
\nand  the appellant could be declared elected would arise  at
\nall.   We  shall first deal with issue 10  because  that  is
\nconcerned with the most important question.
\nWe  must  first\t of  all  notice  the  fact  that  when\t the
\nnominations were scrutinized the appellant did not object to
\nthe  nomination\t papers\t of respondents 2,  6  and  9  being
\naccepted  on  the ground that they were not members  of\t the
\nScheduled  Castes.   Though legally there is no bar  to\t the
\nappellant  raising  that question in the  election  petition
\nquestioning   the  election  of\t the  2nd   respondent\t his
\nallegation  that respondents 2, 6 and 9 are not\t members  of
\nthe Scheduled Castes would be considerably weakened  because
\nof his failure to object at the time of the scrutiny of\t the
\nnomination papers.  All the candidates belong to the  Nagpur
\nCity  and  all\tof  them belong\t to  the  Scheduled  Castes,
\nignoring  for  the present the question\t whether  they\twere
\nBuddhists.  Respondents 2, 6 and 9 are not ordinary  members
\nof the Scheduled Castes.  Res-\n<\/p>\n
926<\/span><\/p>\n
pondent\t 2  is\ta  doctor  married  to\tanother\t doctor\t and
\npractising in Nagpur City.  He sees 60 to 70 patients daily.
\nRespondent  6 is in advocate and as is seen from the  result
\nhe  is popular enough to get 16,123 votes and his wife is  a
\ndoctor.\t  Respondent  9\t is  also  a  doctor.\tThey   must,
\ntherefore, be well-known figures in Nagpur or at least among
\nmembers of the Scheduled Castes.  The appellant should\tcer-
\ntainly have known them personally or at least heard of them.
\nHe  should  have  also heard whether  they  were  Hindus  or
\nBuddhists.   He\t must  have  known  about  their   political
\nactivity.  This is one point of view from which the evidence
\nlet in on behalf of the appellant should be considered.
\nThe  second  point is that the movement for members  of\t the
\nScheduled  Castes becoming Buddhists in order to get out  of
\nthe  Hindu society, of which untouchability is an  important
\nconstituent,  seems to have been started by Dr. Ambedkar  in
\n1956  in  which\t year  a large\tnumber\tof  members  of\t the
\nScheduled  Castes,  including  Dr. Ambedkar  and  his  wife,
\npublically  embraced  Buddhism.\t There is a Bhiku  Niwas  in
\nNagpur\tand  Buddhist  Vandana is held\tevery  Sunday.\t The
\nappellant could not have been unaware of all this.  All\t the
\nparties\t are  persons  who must have been  born\t many  years
\nbefore\t1956 and so they must have been formally  converted.
\nThere is no allegation and there is no evidence as to  when,
\nwhere  and by whom respondents 2, 6 and 9 were converted  to
\nBuddhism.\n<\/p>\n
 Thirdly,  the instances relied on were in the case  of\t the
\n2nd respondent the part he played in the marriage of his two
\nnieces,\t Usha and Sushil, whose marriages are said  to\thave
\nbeen  celebrated  according to Buddhist rites.\tHe  is\talso
\nalleged\t to have visited the Bhiku Niwas and taken  part  in
\nBuddist\t  Vandana.   As\t regards  the  6th  respondent\t the
\ninstances  given are only that of his own marriage  and\t the
\nmarriage of his sister Vimal, both of which are said to have
\nbeen  performed according to Buddhist rites.   The  question
\nregarding  the\tnamkaran ceremonies of the children  of\t the
\nrespondents was not argued-.\n<\/p>\n
Fourthly,  we  have, got to consider this  question  in\t the
\ncontext\t of  Indian  society  and  the\tplace  of  religious
\nobservance  in\tso  far\t as they  show\twhat  religion\tthey
\nprofess.\n<\/p>\n
Taking\tfirst the case of the 2nd respondent, the date,\t the
\nplace  or the circumstances under which he became a  convert
\nto  Buddhism is not given in the election petition,  nor  is
\nthere  any allegation that he himself was married  according
\nto the Buddhist rites.\tHe asserts that wife is a Hindu, his
\nwife  is  a Hindu and they were married according  to  Hindu
\nrites.\t He is a medical graduate who went to England  on  a
\nscholarship  provided by the Maharashtra Government  on\t the
\nground that he was a member of the Scheduled Castes.  If  he
\nwas not a member of the Scheduled Castes he certainly ran  a
\nserious\t risk  in claiming to be a member of  the  Scheduled
\nCastes\tand getting a fairly valuable  scholarship  enabling
\nhim to go to England and there is an equal risk in declaring
\nhimself to be, a member of the Scheduled Castes even for the
\npurpose of election if he were not one.\t He further runs the
\nrisk  of being prosecuted for prejury in giving evidence  in
\nthe petition
\n927<\/span>
\nclaiming to be a member of the Scheduled Castes.  It has not
\nbeen alleged that his marriage was according to the Buddhist
\nrites  and we must, therefore, take his assertion  that\t his
\nmarriage was according to Hindu form at its face value.\t  As
\nregards\t his part in the marriage of his nieces he  says  he
\nwas standing outside and receiving guests while the marriage
\nceremonies  went  on  inside.  The invitation  card  is,  of
\ncourse,\t in  the form which one would expect a\tBuddhist  to
\nissue.\tThe marriage was of the 2nd respondent’s nieces, not
\nof  his own daughters and the invitation was issued  by\t his
\nbrother.  The 2nd respondent’s name is printed there as\t one
\nof  those joining in the invitation.  But it-is\t well  known
\nthat  the names of brothers are usually included in  wedding
\ninvitations  under the head “with the best compliments\tof”.
\nPeople\tdo not take the permission of those whose names\t are
\nincluded in the wedding invitations under that category\t and
\nit  is\tbut  natural that the father  of  the  bride  should
\ninclude\t the  name of his brother who as a doctor  would  be
\nconsidered  to\tbe a prominent member of  the  community  to
\nwhich  the  parties belonged.  It is true  that\t the  second
\nrespondent has said that his brother was also a Hindu but on
\nthat  ground the 2nd respondent’s claim that he is  a  Hindu
\ncould not be impugned.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  also one curious feature about  these  marriages.
\nWhat  exactly constitutes a proper Buddhist wedding  is\t not
\nvery clear from the evidence.  The extract from the  booklet
\n‘Boudcharya  Vidhi’ marked as Ext.100-B refers,\t apart\tfrom
\nrecitation  of the mantaras, to the husband and\t wife  being
\nmade  either to wear rings or some Sindhur being applied  on
\nthe head and of tying the sacred thread.  But almost all the
\nwitnesses also mentioned that the mangal sutra is tied which
\nis  a Hindu custom.  It also appears from the evidence\tthat
\nat  the time of these marriages according to Buddhist  rites
\nthe pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and Buddha are garlanded.\t One
\nwitness for the petitioner has said that Buddhism is against
\nidol worship which really shows the extent of his ignorance.
\nThe   garlanding  of  Dr.  Ambedkar’s  photo  graph   cannot
\ncertainly  be  a  religious  part  of  the  ceremony.\tEven
\naccording to the Buddhists marriage is said to be one of the
\nten Sanskars.  Therefore, except perhaps for the  garlanding
\nof  the, pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and Buddha there  is\tvery
\nlittle\tdifference between a wedding according\tto  Buddhist
\nrites  and a wedding according to Hindu rites.\tThe  mantras
\nwhich  are  in\tPali or in Sanskrit are not  likely to\tbe
\nunderstood  by the majority of the persons present.   Indeed
\nit is doubtful whether they would recognise the language  as
\nPali  or Sanskrit.  As regards persons officiating  in\tsuch
\nmarriages,  it is said that there are two Bhikus in  Nagpur,
\nDr.  Kausalayan and Medhankar.\tA Bhiku is a sanyasi and  at
\nfeast in the Hindu society a sanyasi never officiate.-, as a
\npriest\tin  a wedding.\tSo any officiation by a Bhiku  in  a
\nwedding in apparently something new which the new  Buddhists
\nin Nagpur or Maharashtra might have adopted.  The importance
\ngiven  to Dr. Ambedkar is very significant in this  context.
\nHe  was\t a  great  scholar,  the  chief\t architect  of\t the
\nConstitution, but also a politician.  He seem-, to have been
\nheld  in great veneration by the Scheduled  Castes  particu-
\nlarly  in  Maharashtra\tat least by Mahars  among  them,  he
\nhimself having been born a Mahar.  That the Scheduled Castes
\nin  general and Mahars in particular should have  been\tvery
\nproud that he belonged
\n928<\/span>
\nto their community is natural enough and the respect and the
\nveneration shown to him is also natural.  But on that ground
\nwe  find it difficult to accept that any marriage  in  which
\nhis  photograph\t was  garlanded or  even  a  Buddhist  Bhiku
\nofficiated should be considered to be a wedding according to
\nBuddhist  rites.  Curiously Medhankar has not been  examined
\nin  this  case.\t What we say in this respect  applies  to  a
\nconsiderable  extent to the marriages of the 6th  respondent
\nas we I as his sister.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the 2nd respondent visiting the Bhiku Niwas,\t the
\nexplanation  given  by\tthe 2nd\t respondent  appears  to  be
\nreasonable enough.  His dispensary is near the Bhiku  Niwas.
\nHe  says that he has gone there either as a medical man\t or.
\non  social occasions.  His joining the Buddhist\t Vandana  is
\nspoken to only by one of the witnesses, Ramesh Vaidya and we
\nare not prepared to hold on his,solitary evidence that\tthe,
\n2nd respondent was taking part in the Vandana.\tWe find\t the
\n2nd respondent’s evidence on this point as more\t acceptable.
\nAs  far\t as  the 6th respondent is  concerned  there  is  no
\nevidence  about his visiting the Bhiku Niwas or joining\t the
\nBuddhist  Vandana.  The evidence is only about his  marriage
\nand  that  of his sister being performed  according  to\t the
\nBuddhist rites.\n<\/p>\n
This  matter has also to be looked at from another point  of
\nview.  There is evidence in this case that persons who still
\ncontinue  to  be  Hindus  marry\t persons  who  have   become
\nBuddhists and that in such cases the officiating Bhiku\tasks
\nthem  to  become Buddhist on the occasion of  the  marriage.
\nAgain  this might explain the resort to the  Buddhist  rites
\nbeing  followed\t in these marriages even where\tone  of\t the
\nparties\t to  the marriage is a non-Buddhist.   There  is  no
\nevidence  that\tin  such cases the Hindu  partner  does\t not
\nprofess\t Hinduism thereafter.  There is also  evidence\tthat
\neven  some Hindu Mahars celebrate their marriages  according
\nto  Buddhist  rites-See\t P.W.25’s  evidence  regarding\t his
\nnephew’s  marriage.  It is very difficult therefore to\trely
\nupon  such  evidence  alone  to hold  that  either  the\t 2nd
\nrespondent  or the 6th respondent are Buddhists.  It  should
\nalso  be noted that the 6th respondent also denies  that  he
\nbecame\ta  Buddhist.   We  consider,  therefore,  that\t the
\nevidence in this case does not satisfactorily establish that
\neither\tthe 2nd respondent or the 6th respondent  ceased  to
\nprofess\t Hinduism,  they  having been  undoubtedly  born  as
\nHindus.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection it is necessary to remember that Hinduism
\nis  a very broad based religion.  In fact some\tpeople\ttake
\nthe view that it is not a religion at all on the ground that
\nthere  is  no  one founder and no one sacred  book  for\t the
\nHindus.\t  This,\t of course, is a very  narrow  view,  merely
\nbased on the comparison between Hinduism on the one side and
\nIslam  and  Christianity on the other.\tBut one\t knows\tthat
\nHinduism through the ages has absorbed or accommodated\tmany
\ndifferent practices, religious as well as secular, and\talso
\ndifferent  faiths.  One of the witnesses has described\tthat
\nhe  considered Buddha as the 11th Avtar.  Indeed  there\t are
\nhistorians and sociologists who take the view that  Buddhism
\ndisappeared  from India not by any other means but by  being
\nabsorbed  into Hinduism.  Therefore, if a certain  community
\nin a spirit of protest says that they would give up Hinduism
\nand adopt
\n\t\t\t    929<\/span>
\nBuddhism  it  is not likely to make much  change  either  in
\ntheir beliefs or in their practices.  Centuries of habit and
\ncustom cannot be wiped out overnight.  While in the case  of
\nhighly educated members who have chosen the new religion the
\nchange might make a difference in their attitude and perhaps
\nin  their  habits and customs, to the vast  majority  it  is
\nlikely to make very little difference.\tMerely because in  a
\npublic\tmeeting Dr. Ambedkar and Mrs. Ambedkar and  a  large
\nnumber of people openly got themselves converted to Buddhism
\nit does not automatically follow that all the members of the
\nScheduled Castes followed them in their footsteps.  It\tdoes
\nnot even mean that all Mahars, who seem to form the  largest
\nelement among the new Buddhists, became Buddhists.  Hinduism
\nis  so tolerant and Hindu religious practices so varied\t and
\neclectic that one would find it difficult to say whether one
\nis   practising\t or  professing\t Hindu\treligion   or\tnot.
\nEspecially when one is born a Hindu the fact that he goes to
\na Buddhist temple or a church or a durgah cannot be said  to
\nshow  that  they  are no more Hindus unless  it\t is  clearly
\nproved\tthat they have changed their religion from  Hinduism
\nto  some other religion.  In Tamil nadu in Nagapatnam  there
\nis  a  Muslim Durgah the majority of pilgrims to  which\t are
\nHindus.\t  In  the same, town there is a\t church\t Vellankanni
\ncalled\tLourdes\t of the East after the famous  Lady  of\t the
\nLourdes in France.  In Andhra Hindus have names like  Mastan
\nAyya or. Hussain Amma named after Muslim saints whose durgah
\nare near their places.\n<\/p>\n
For  a person who has grown up in Indian society it is\tvery
\ndifficult  to  get  out of the coils of\t the  caste  system.
\nThere  are many castes among the Scheduled  Castes.   Though
\nall of them are tainted with untouchability, some among them
\nclaim to be higher than some others.  One knows of instances
\nof “high caste” members of the Scheduled Castes addressing a
\n“low  caste” member of the Scheduled Castes in the same\t way
\nas  the ordinary high caste Hindu would address a member  of
\nthe  Scheduled\tCastes.\t The Urdu speaking  Muslims  in\t the
\nSouth would rarely inter-marry with Tamil speaking  Muslims.
\nWe know that the Punjabi Muslims used to look down upon\t the
\nBengali\t Muslims.  Till recently Muslims, Hindus  and  Sikhs
\nused  to  call themselves as Rajput Muslims,  Rajput  Sikhs,
\nMuslim\t Jats  and  Hindu  Jats.   Because  of\tthe   Punjab
\nlegislation preventing alienation of agricultural land\tmany
\nMuslims\t described  themselves as agricultural\ttribes.\t  At
\nleast  in  the\tSouth  of India\t till  recently\t there\twere
\nchurches where places were separately reserved for  Schduled
\nCaste\tChristians.   To  this\tday  one  sees\t matrimonial
\nadvertisements which want a Vellala Christian bride or Nadar
\nChristian  bride.   All\t this  is  merely  to  indicate\t the
\ndifficulty  of persons getting out of the caste customs\t and
\nthe  mentality\tgenertad thereby.  The\tmonstrous  curse  of
\nuntouchability\thas  got to be eradicated It has got  to  be
\neradicated not merely by making constitutional provisions or
\nlaws but also by eradicating it from the minds and hearts of
\nmen.   For  that it is even more important that\t members  of
\ncommunities  who are; untouchable should assert their  self-
\nrespect and fight for their dignity than that members of the
\nother  commanities  should  forget  about  it.\t Fortunately
\nthings\tare changing in\t cities and bigger towns it  can  be
\nsaid  to have almost disappeared.  One rarely knows  whether
\nthe other person he meets is or is not a member
\n930<\/span>
\nof  the Scheduled Castes and no one bothers about  it  these
\ndays.\tThe  oppression\t which\twe  read  of  sometimes\t  in
\nnewspapers  of the Scheduled Castes by the higher castes  in
\nvillages  are really manifestation of the  conflict  between
\nagricultural  labour  or  the  agricultural  serfs,  as\t the
\nmembers of the Scheduled Castes mostly are, on the one\tside
\nand  the  land-holding class on the other.  It is  wrong  to
\ndescribe  them as oppression of the Scheduled Castes by\t the
\nhigher\tcastes.\t If in these circumstances some\t members  of
\nthe Scheduled Castes in their protest against the system  of
\nuntouchability\tresort\tto desperate measures to  erase\t the
\nindignity  of  untouchability one cannot  blame\t them.\t But
\nwhether\t it  produces any result is  a\tdifferent  question,
\nhowever\t well-meaning  such efforts may be.   There  may  be
\nother members of the community equally educated and  equally
\nconscious  of  the  indignity  of  their  being\t branded  as
\nuntouchables  who  might still feel that the way  to  remove
\nuntouchability\tis not by changing one’s religion.  We\thave
\nevidence  in this case that people who claim  themselves  to
\nhave  become Buddhists have taken advantage of\tscholarships
\nand  other  facilities granted by Government to\t members  of
\nScheduled  Castes.   Whether such concession to\t members  of
\nScheduled Castes should also be extended to members of those
\ncastes\twho  have  changed their  religion  is\ta  different
\nquestion.   Whether the Scheduled Castes Order\tshould\talso
\ndescribe; such persons as members of the Scheduled Castes is
\nvery  relevant to the present question.\t We are\t of  opinion
\nthat  the Scheduled Castes Order proceeds on a sound  basis.
\nThe attempt of persons who have changed their religion\tfrom
\nHinduism  to Buddhism, who still claim the  concessions\t and
\nfacilities  intended  for Hindus only shows  that  otherwise
\nthese  persons might get a vested interest in continuing  to
\nbe  members  of\t the Scheduled Castes.\tIn  course  of\ttime
\nvested interests are created in continuing to be members  of
\nSchduled  Castes as in continuing to be members of  Backward
\nClasses.  It is from the point of view of discouraging\tthat
\ntendency  that the provision of the Scheduled  Castes  Order
\nseems to be a proper one.\n<\/p>\n
We have said all this merely to show that this is not a case
\nof black and white but a grew area where customs and  habits
\nof  centuries along with some new ideas co-exist and  it  is
\ndifficult to say from a man’s attitude in respect of certain
\nquestions whether he is a Hindu or a Buddhist.\tReligion  is
\nessentially  a\thighly personal matter and  there  the\topen
\nassertion  by a person especially an educated member of\t the
\nsociety\t about\tthe religion he professes  should  be  given
\nconsiderable weight over the interested testimony of  others
\nbased on stray instances.  We would, therefore, in agreement
\nwith the High Court hold that the respondents-2, 6 and 9 are
\nnot  Buddhists but continue to be members of  the  Scheduled
\nCastes.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the question of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram\t the
\nevidence  of  R.W. 2, the Returning Officer, shows  that  he
\nknew Ranjit Meshram and\t that  Ranjit  gave  the  withdrawal
\nletter, Ext. 70.  As regards Ext.  69, of course, he is\t not
\nquite sure.  But his evidence that be knew   Ranjit  Meshram
\nand that Ranjit Meshram himself gave the withdrawal  letter
\nExt.  70  stands  unrebutted.  He is not  able\tto  remember
\nclearly the circumstances under which he made the endorse-\n<\/p>\n
931<\/span><\/p>\n
ment  in  Ext. 69 that it was given by Ranjit  Meshram.\t  It
\ndoes  not  affect his evidence regarding Ext. 70.   No\tmala
\nfides have, been imputed to him and we see no reason why  we
\nshould\tnot  accept his evidence. In view of  this  and\t our
\nfinding\t that it has not, been established that\t respendents
\n2, 6 and 9 are not professing Hinduism it is unnecessary  to
\ndiscuss\t  the  prayer  regarding  declaring  the   appellant
\nelected.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal is dismissed with the costs of\t the
\n2nd respondent to be paid by the appellant.
\nAppeal dismissed
\nV. P. S.\n<\/p>\n
932<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 420, 1975 SCR (2) 923 Author: A Alagiriswami Bench: Alagiriswami, A. PETITIONER: GANPAT Vs. RESPONDENT: RETURNING OFFICER & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/12\/1974 BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: 1975 AIR 420 1975 SCR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGanpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-25T15:54:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T15:54:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\"},\"wordCount\":3869,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\",\"name\":\"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T15:54:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-25T15:54:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974","datePublished":"1974-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T15:54:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974"},"wordCount":3869,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974","name":"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T15:54:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganpat-vs-returning-officer-ors-on-4-december-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=63176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63176\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}