Sandhya Thakur Vs. Vimla Devi Kushwah and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 701 of 2004
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.B. C.R.P. No. 681 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.B. C.R.P. No. 681 of 2001)
Petitioner: Sandhya Thakur
Respondent: Vimla Devi Kushwah and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 701 of 2004
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.B. C.R.P. No. 681 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.B. C.R.P. No. 681 of 2001)
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI, CJI, G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 28, 2005
Appearances:
Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Mr. Sarad Singhania, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates for the Appellant.
Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Mr. Indra Makwana, Advocates for the Respondents.
Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Mr. Indra Makwana, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
ELECTION LAWS
Elections – Municipal elections – Reserved seat – Entitlement to contest – Ward reserved for backward class candidate – Applicant who by birth did not belong to backward community filing nomination and getting elected from such ward on the basis that since she got married to a person belonging to backward community she belonged to the said community – Whether appellant gets her lineage from the person to whom she got married or from her father. Held that in the light of the decision rendered in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy (JT 2005 (1) SC 496) the appellant who by birth did not belong to backward community cannot be said to belong to backward community just because she was married to a person belonging to the said community and hence her election from ward reserved for backward community was not valid and legal. (Para 2)
Elections – Municipal elections – Reserved seat – Entitlement to contest – Ward reserved for backward class candidate – Applicant who by birth did not belong to backward community filing nomination and getting elected from such ward on the basis that since she got married to a person belonging to backward community she belonged to the said community – Whether appellant gets her lineage from the person to whom she got married or from her father. Held that in the light of the decision rendered in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy (JT 2005 (1) SC 496) the appellant who by birth did not belong to backward community cannot be said to belong to backward community just because she was married to a person belonging to the said community and hence her election from ward reserved for backward community was not valid and legal. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy (JT 2005 (1) SC 496) (Para 2)
2. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others (JT 1996 (1) SC 57) (Para 1)
3. Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi (AIR 1984 SC 600) (Para 1)
4. N.E. Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh (AIR 1972 SC 1840) (Para 1)
2. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others (JT 1996 (1) SC 57) (Para 1)
3. Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi (AIR 1984 SC 600) (Para 1)
4. N.E. Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh (AIR 1972 SC 1840) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
1. The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Brahmin. She married one Naresh Kumar Thakur who is a Namdev by caste. In the election to the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior, the appellant filed her nomination for election for the post of a Corporator for Ward No.50, a ward reserved for backward communities. The appellant was declared elected. The defeated candidate – the respondent herein challenged the election of the appellant in an Election Petition. The District Judge held that the nomination paper of the appellant was wrongly accepted and that her election was liable to be set aside since she could not contest the seat reserved for backward communities. The appellant filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court after consideration of the relevant aspects confirmed the decision of the District Court. The court overruled the contention of the appellant that the Circular dated 12.0.3.1997 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh was restricted to employment or admission alone and did not apply to elections to local bodies. The High Court also noticed the decisions of this Court in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others1, N.E. Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh2 and Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi3.
2. In the light of the decision in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others (supra) and our decision rendered today in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy4, which were heard along with this appeal, it must be held that the appellant, who by birth did not belong to a backward class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that the appellant was entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward community merely because of her marriage to a person belonging to the Namdev community or caste. We also see no reason to differ from the High Court in its view that the Circular dated 12.0.3.1997 was not restricted in its operation to employment and admission to an educational institution, but was also relevant and applicable in elections to local bodies. It is, thus, found that both the reasons given by the High Court for affirming the decision of the District Judge setting aside the election of the appellant are sustainable. In view of this we have no hesitation in confirming the decision of the High Court and in dismissing this appeal. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with costs.
1. The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Brahmin. She married one Naresh Kumar Thakur who is a Namdev by caste. In the election to the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior, the appellant filed her nomination for election for the post of a Corporator for Ward No.50, a ward reserved for backward communities. The appellant was declared elected. The defeated candidate – the respondent herein challenged the election of the appellant in an Election Petition. The District Judge held that the nomination paper of the appellant was wrongly accepted and that her election was liable to be set aside since she could not contest the seat reserved for backward communities. The appellant filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court after consideration of the relevant aspects confirmed the decision of the District Court. The court overruled the contention of the appellant that the Circular dated 12.0.3.1997 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh was restricted to employment or admission alone and did not apply to elections to local bodies. The High Court also noticed the decisions of this Court in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others1, N.E. Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh2 and Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi3.
2. In the light of the decision in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others (supra) and our decision rendered today in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy4, which were heard along with this appeal, it must be held that the appellant, who by birth did not belong to a backward class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that the appellant was entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward community merely because of her marriage to a person belonging to the Namdev community or caste. We also see no reason to differ from the High Court in its view that the Circular dated 12.0.3.1997 was not restricted in its operation to employment and admission to an educational institution, but was also relevant and applicable in elections to local bodies. It is, thus, found that both the reasons given by the High Court for affirming the decision of the District Judge setting aside the election of the appellant are sustainable. In view of this we have no hesitation in confirming the decision of the High Court and in dismissing this appeal. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with costs.
