GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER & ORS. December 4, 1974 [A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA JJ.] Electio11-Member of Scheduled Caste-Al/egatio11 that relllrned cmu/ic/at1! hecC1me a convert to B11ddlrism-Proo/.
c In the election to the State Legislative Assembly to fill 11p a seat reserved for members of . the scheduled castes from· Nagpur, the second respondent was de_clared elected. The appellant challenged the ele:tion, on the ground, inter alta, that the second respondent ceased to be a Hindu having been converted to B11ddhism. The High Court dismissed the election p.>tition. Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
JI ELD : (1} The second respondent was a well known Doctor in Nagpur, .the appellant belonged to Nagpur and they belonged to scheduled castes b~forc the second respondent's alleged conversion to Buddhism. And yet, the appel- lant has not giyen the date, the place or the drcumstances under which the second respondent became a convert "lo Buddhism. Nor did the appelJant
object at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, that the se1;<>nd respondent was not a member of the scheduled caste. [925 U-926 B, F~J (2} The second respondent was born a Hindu and was married according to Hindu rites. He went to Enl)land on a Government scholarship given to members of scheduled ·castes to study Medicine. If. he was not a member of a scheduled caste he had run a risk of prosecution when he so claimed for gettina the scholarship, and also rnn a similar risk for perjury in the ·present case. [926 G-Hl
(3) Merely becall'Se the nieces of the second respondent were married I1ccording to Budahist rites, the Invitation for their marriage was in the Buddhist . form, the second respondent's name was printed as one of those joining in the invitlltion, at the time of the marriage the pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and the Buddha were garlanded, . and a Buddhist Bhiku officiated at the marriage, It could not be held that the second respondent was a Buddhist. [927 A-D, E. GJ (a} The evidence shows that there is very little difference between a wedd- ing according to "Buddhist rites and one according to Hindu rites. _Moreover, Buddhist's rites are followed even where one of the parties to the marriage is . a non-Buddhist, and there is no evidence that the Hindu partner does not con~
tlnue to profess Hinduism thereafter. [927 D-E, 928 D-EJ (b} The names of brothers are included in wedding invitations under the head "With best compliments of', very often without their iiermission. [927 B-CJ (c) The picture of Dr. Ambedkar might have been garlanded be:ause he WQS held in great veneration by the Scheduled castes.
Th~refore, mete!y because of the garlanding and the Buddhist Bhiku officiating at· the marriage, the wedd- ing could not be considered to be according to Buddhist rites. (928 A- BJ
(4} When one is born a Hindu .the fact that he g(\CS to. a Buddhi~t temple or I!. Church or Durga cannot be said to show that he 1s no more 11 Hmdtt and · that he had changed bis religion. [929 C-DJ
(5} Also from the fa:t that Di". anJ Mrs. Ambedkar and a lar~e numl>~r of people op°enly got themselves converted to Buddhism it does not follow that all the members of the scheduled castes follow~d m their foot steps. [929 BJ ( 6} Religion is eSS!lf!tially a ~ighly pers<!nal matter al!d Hinduism is so tolerant and Hindu reltg1ous prac!tces s<;> vane4 .and eclecttc \hat o!le wo~d find it difficult to say whether a. person is pract!smg Of professing Hm~u reh- gion 9r not. Jn such a matter. the _open assertion by a person, especially an SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS
[1975] 2 s.c.a. educated member of society, about the reliaion be professes should be given considerable weight over tlie interested testimony of others based upon stray instances. · [92~ c, 930 F-G]
C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No .. 348 of 1973. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th. November, 1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Election Petition No. 1 of 1972.
L. M. Singhvi, M. C. Rajkarna, S. N. Ponikar, A. G. Maneses, K. J. John and J. B. Dadachanji,' for the appellant. · G. L. Sa'nghi, S. B. Wad, B. U. Wahano and Jayashree Wad, for respondent No. 2.
K. L. Hathi and M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 21 and 22. The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by ALAOIRISWAMI, J. In the election to the Maharashtra Le!~S lative Assembly held in March 1972 to fil up a seat from the North Nagpur constituency reserved for members of the. Scheduled Castes c
the 2nd respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an eliec- · tion petition questioning the election. That petition having been dis- · D missed by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) this appe-al has been file~ by the appellant.
In that 1:lection. as many as 19 persons filed their l)Omination papers. Nine of them withdrew leaving respondents 2 to 10 and the appellant in the field. One of them who withdrew was the 11th r1es- pondent, Ranjit Meshram, with whom we will !rave to deal later.· In the election the 2nd respondent obtained 22,993 votes, the appelfont · obtained 21,115 votes, the 6th respondent obtained 16,123 votes and the 9th respondent. 2,590 votes. It is unnecessary to refer to the otber respondents or· the votes obtained by them because the arguments before this Court have been confined to respondents 2, 6 and 9. As many as 14 issues were framed for decision of which, as far as the arguments before this Court are concerned, only issues 9 and 10 survive. · They are set (!Ut below :
"9. (a) Was the notice of withdrawal (document No. 5) ten- dered by the respondent No. 11 to the Returning dfficer a valid one ? (b) Did the notice of withdrawal (document No. 6) ten-
dered ·by Shri S. P. Ukey in the prescribed fonil cure the defect, if any; in the notice of withdrawal (document No. 6)) ? ( c) Can these notices be said to be legally tendered. as
required by section 3 7 of the Representation. of the People Act, 1951 ? c: ( d) lf not, its effect ? ( e) Has the ac;ceptance of the withdrawal of the respon- dent No. 11 materially changed the election results?
GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER (Alagirlswami, /.) 10. (a) Are the respondents 2 and 4 to 10 converts to Bud- dhism and have they embmced and professed Bud- dhism and ceased to be Hindus ?
(b) If so, were they eligible to contest the election from the Reserve Constituency ? ( c) If not eli~ible, what is the effect ? (d) Did the candidature of the respondent No. 6, if he·
was disqualified on account of the conversion . to Buddhism, materially affect and after the election · results? ( e) What is the effect of not raising the objection about the eligibility of the c,andidate at the time of scrutiny
of the nominations ? It may be necessary to notice issue 13 also because· the appellant had prayed not only for setting aside the election of the 2nd respondent but also for his being declared ckcted from the constituency. Is5ue
9 relates to the question of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram to whom reference has already been made. Issue 10 relates to the question as to whether respondents 2 and 4 to 10 could be said to be members of the Scheduled Castes so as to be clig1ble to stand for election from th.is constituency.
Though in the pelltmn the question was raised about respondents 2 and 4 .to 10, even in the High Court only the question relating to respondents 2, 6 and 9 was considered. Before this Court Dr. Singhvi appearjng for the appellant concentrated ·bis •attention regarding the case of respondents 2 and 6 and preferred to E . leave tdh.e cas
2 e of hrespohue nt 9 alone.d Th ishais because next to. the respon ent and t e appe ant, rcspon ent . s got the argest nwn- ber of votes. Even the question regarding respondent 6 is only im- portant from the point of view of the prayer in the election petition for . declaring the appellant elected after setting . aside the election of the 2nd respondent. . If the 2nci respondeh~ is found not to belong to a Scheduled Caste no further question will survive. It. is only if . the 2nd respondent is found to b.:long to a Scheduled Caste that the question whether respondent 6 also .is or is not a member of a Sche- . duled Caste and the appellant could be declared elected would arise at all. We shall first deal with is~ue 10 because that is concerned with the most important questmn.
We must first of all notice the fact that when the nominations were scrutinized the appellant did not object to the nomination papers. of respondents ?, 6 and 9 being accepted on the ground that they we're · not members of the Scheduled CaStes. Though legalliy there is no bar to the appellant raising that question in the election petition question- ing the election of the 2nd respondent his allegation that responden~ 2 . 6 and 9 are not members of the Scheduled Castes would be consi- d~rably weakened because of his failure to object at the. time of the : scrutiny of the nomination papers.
All foe candidates belong to the . Nagpur City and all of them belong to the~hedul~ Castes, iggorill8 • for the present the question whether they were Buddhists.· ResAAndents 2, 6 and 9 are not ordinary members of the Scheduled Castes.- Res- !'''
···-• pondent 2 is a doctor married to another doctor and practising in Nagpur City. He sees 60 to 70 patients daily. Respondent 6 is an advocate and as is seen from the result he is popular enough to 1get 16,123 votes and his wife is a doctor, Respondent 9 is also a doctor. They must, therefore, be well-known figures in Nagpur or at . least among members of the Scheduled Castes.
The appellant should cer- tainly have known them personally or at least heard of them. He should have also heard whether they were Hindus or Buddhists. He must have known about their political activity.
This 1s one point of view from which the evidence let in on behalf of the appellant should be considered. The second point is that the movement for members of the Schedul- ed Castes becoming Buddhists in order to get out of the Hindu society, of which untouchability is an important constituent, seems. to have been started l~y Dr. Ambedkar in 1956 in which year a large number of members of the Scheduled Castes, including Dr. Ambedkar. and his wife, publicall:y embraced Buddhism.
There is a Bhiku Niwas in Nagpur and Buddhist Vandana is held every Sunday. The appellant could not have been unaware of all this. All the parties are persons who must have been born many years before 1956 and so they must have been formally converted. There is no allegation and there is · D no evidence as to when, where and by whom respondents 2, 6 and 9 were converted to Buddhism.
Thirdly, the instances relied on were in the case of the 2nd n~s pondent the part he played in the marriage of his two nieces, Usha tmd Sushi!, whose marriages are said to have been celebrated accord- ing to Buddhist rites.
He is also alleged to have visited the Bhiku Niwas and taken part in Buddist Vandana. As regards the 6th rns- pondent the instances given are only that of his own marriage and the marriage of his sister Vimal, both of which are -said to have been pe:r- formcd according to Buddhist rites.
The question regarding the nam- karan ceremonies of the children of the respondents was not argut:Q. Fourthly, we have got to consider this question in the context of Indian society a.Pd the place of religious observance in so far as th1:y show what religion they profess.
Taking first the case of the 2nd respondent, the date, the place or the circumstances under which he became a convert to Buddhism is not given in the election petition, nor is there any allegation that be himself was married according to the Buddhist rites.
He asserts that he is a Hindu, his wife is a Hindu and they were married according 1to Hindu rites. He is a medical graduate who went to England on a scholarship provided by the Maharashtra Government on the ground that he was a member of the Scheduled Castes. If he was not a mem- ber of the Scheduled Castes he cettainly ran a serious risk in claimir1g to be a member of the Scheduled Castes and getting a fairly valuabile scholarship enabling him to go to England and there is an equal risk in declaring himself to be a member of the Scheduled Castes even for the purpose of election if he were not one.
He further runs t1:1e risk of being prosecuted for prejury in giving evidence in the petitfon c GANPAT l'· RETURNING OFFICER (Alagiriswami, /.) claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Castes. It has not been alleged that his marriage was according to the Buddhist rites and we m~st, therefore, take his assertion that his marriage was according to Hindu form at its face value. As regards his part in the marriage· of his nieces he says he was standing outside and receiving guests while the marriage ceremonies went on inside. The invitation card is, of course, in the form wl:Pch one would expect a Buddhist to issue. The marriage was of the 2nd respondent's nieces, not of his own c;laughters aud the invitation was issued by his brother. The 2nd respondent'11 name is printed there as one of those joining in the invitation. But it is well known that the names of brothers are usually included in wedding invitations under the head "with the best compliments of". People do not take the permission of those whose names are included in the wedding invitations under that category and it is but natural that the father of the bride should include the name of his brother who as a doctor would be considered to be a prominent member of the community to which the parties belonged. It is true that the second respondent has said that his brother was also a Hindu but on that ground ,the 2nd respondent's claim that he is a Hindu could not be impugned.
There is also one curious feature about these marriages. What exactly constitutes a proper Buddhist wedding is not very clear from the evidence. The extract from the booklet 'Boudcharya Vidhi' mark- ed as Ext.I 00-B refers, apart from recitation of the mantaras, to the hdsband and wife being made either to wear rings or some Sindhur being applied on the head and of tying the sacred thread. But almost all the witnesses also mentioned that the mangal sutra is tied which is a Hindu custom.
It also appears from the evidenee that at the time of these marriages according to Buddhist rites the pictures of Dr. A111bedkar and Buddha are garlanded. One witness for the petitionec has said that Buddhism is against idol worship which really shows the extent of his ignorance. The garlanding of Dr. Ambedkar's phot0 ;graph cannot certainly be a religious part of the ceremony. Even according to the Buddhists marriage is said to be one of the ten Sans-. kars. Therefore, except perhaps for the garlanding of the pictures of Dr. Ambedkar and Buddha there is very little difference between a wedding according to Buddhist rites and a wedding according to Hindu rites. The mantras which are in Pali or in Sanskrit are not like~y -to be understood by the majority of the persons present. Indeed it· is doubtful whether they would recognise the language as Pali', or Sanskrit. As regards persons officiating in such marriages,· it is said that there are two Bhikus in Nagpur, Dr. Kausalayan and Medhankar.
A Bhiku is a sanyasi and at least in the Hindu sociefy a _sanyasi never officiates as a priest ill a wedding. So any officiation -by a Bhiku in a wedding in apparently something new which the neo Buddhists .in Nagpur or Maharashtra might have adopted. The importance given
to Dr. Ambedkar is very significant in this context. He was a great scholar. the chief ar~hitect of the Constitution, but also a politician. He seems to have been held in great veneration by the Scheduled Castes particu- larly in Maharasht{a at least by Mahars among l:hem, he himself hav- ing been born a Mahar. That t}le Scheduled ~Castes in general and Mahars in particular should have been very proud that he belonged · ·SUPREME COURT llEPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.Jl. to their community is natural enough and the respect and the ven1~ra tion shown to him is also natural. But on· that ground we find it difficult to accept that any marriage ·in which his photograph was
garlanded or even a Buddhist Bhiku officiated should be constdered lo be a wedding according to Buddhist rites. Curiously Medhankar has not been examined in this case. What we say in this respect ~pplies t0 a considerable extent to the marriages of the <tth respondent as· we 1 as his sister.
As regards the 2nd respondent visiting the Bhik11 Niwas, the ex- planation given by the 2nd respondent appears to be reasonable en- ough. His dispensary is near the Bhiku Niwas. He says that he has gone there either as a medical man or on social occasions. . His join- ing the Buddhist Vandana is spoken to only by one of the witnesses, Ramesh Vaidya and we are not prepared to hold on his ,solitary 1:vi- dence that tl1e 2nd respondent was taking part in the Vandana. We find the 2nd respondent's evidence 0111 this point as more acceptable. As far as the 6th respondent is concerned there is no evidence about his visiting the Bhiku Niwas or joining the Buddhist Vandana. The evidence is o!lly about his marriage and tllat of his sister being perform- ed according to the Buddhist rites.
This matter has also to be looked at from another point of vit:w. There is evidence in this case that persons who still continue to be· Hindus marry persons who have become Buddhists and that in such cases the officiating Bhiku asks them to become· Buddhist on the occilS' c
ion of the marriage. Again this might explain tlle resort to the Buddhist rites being followed in these marriages even where one of the parties to the marriage is a non-Buddhist. There is no evidence that .. E
in such cases the Hindu partner does not profess Hinduism thereafter. There is also evidence that even some Hindu Mahars celebrate thieir marriages according to Buddhist rite~ P.W.25's evidence regard· ing his nephew's marriage.. It is very difficult therefore to rely upon such evidence alone to hold that either the 2nd respondent or the tith respondent are Buddhists. It should also be noted that the. 6th ms- pondent also denies that he became a Buddhist. We consider, there- fore, that the evidence in this case does not ·Satisfactorily establish tlnat either the 2nd respondent or the 6th respondent ceased to profc:ss Hinduism, they having been undoubtedly born as Hindus.
In this connection it is necessary to remember that Hinduism is a very broad based religion. In fact some people take the view that it is not a religion at all on the ground that there is no one founder and no one sacred book for the Hindus. This, of course, is a very narrll•W view merely based on the comparison between Hinduism on the 01!e side ud Islam and (,'hristianity on the other. But one knows that Hinduism through the ages has absorbed or accommodated manv differ-/ ent practfces, religious as weU as secular, and also different faiths. Oi!ti of the witnesses has described that he considered Buddha as the 11th Avtar. Indeed there are historians and sociologists who take the Yie:w that Buddhi~m disappeared from India not by· any. other means b,ilt by being absorbed into Hinduism. Therefore, if a certain commurtity in a spirit of protest says th.at t~ey would give up Hinduism and adopt c
·G GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER (Alagiri.rwami, /.) Buddhism il is nol likely to make much change either in their beliefs or in their practices. Centuries of habit and custom cannot be ·wiped out overnight.
While in the cast\ of highly educated members who have chosen the new religion the change might make a difference in their attitude and perhaps in their habits and customs, to the vast majority it is likely to make very little difference.
Merely because in a public meeting Dr. Ambedkar and Mrs. Ambedkar . and a large number of people openly got themselves converted to Buddhism it does not automatically follow that all the members of the Scheduled Castes followed them in their footsteps.
It does not even mea11 that all Mahars, who seem to form the largest element among the neo- Buddhists, became Buddhists. Hinduism is so tolerant and Hindu religious practices so varied and eclectic that one would find it diffi: cult to say whether one is practising or professing Hindu religion or not. Especially when one. is born a Hindu the fact that he goes to a Buddhist temple or a church or a durgah cannot ·Pe said to show that they are no more Hindus unless it is clearly proved that they have changed their religion from Hinduism to soine other
religion. In Tamilnadu in Nagapatnam there is a Muslim Dutgah the majority of pilgrims to which. are Hindus. In the same towif there is a church Vellankanni called Lourdes of the East after the famous Lady of the Lourdes in France. In Andhra Hindus have names like Mastan Ayya or Hussain Amma named after Muslim saints whose durgah are near their places:
For a person who has grown up in Indian society it is very difficult to get out of the coils of the caste system. There are many castes among the Scheduled Castes. Though iii! of them are tainted with untouchability, some among them claim to be higher than some others. One knows of instances of ''high caste" members .of the Scht!duled Castes addressing a "low caste" member of. -the Scheduled Castes in the same waiy as the ordinary high caste Hindu would address a mem- ber of the Scheduled Castes. . The Urdu speaking Muslims in · the South would rarely inter-marry with Tamil speaking Muslims. We know that the Punjabi Muslims used to look ddWn upon the Bengali Muslims .. Till recently Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs used to call them- selves as Rajput Muslims, Rajput Sikhs, Muslim Jats1 and Hindu Jats. Because of the Punjab legislation preventing alienation. of agricultural . land many Muslims described themselves as agricultural tribes. At least in the South of India· till recently there "'.ere churches wherte plac- es were separately reserved for Schduled Caste Christians: To this day one sees matrimonial adverti$Cments Which want a.Velhila Chris- tian bride or Nadar Christian bride. All this is merely to indii:ate the · difficulty of persorui getting out of the caste customs and the mentality genertad thereby. The monstrous curse of untouehability has got to be eradicated. . It has got to be eradicated not merely by making C9fl· stitutional provisions or laws but also by eradicating it from the minds and hearts of men. · For that it is even more important that mem- bers of communities ·who are untouchable should assert their self-res- pect and fight for their dignity than that members of the other 'COnl· munitics should forget about it. Fortunateey things are changing. Jn cities and bigger towns it can be said t<) have elmost disappeared. One / rarely ~ows whether the other person he· meets is or is not·a member of the Scheduled Castes and no one bothers about it these days. The
oppression which we read of sometimes in newspapers of the Schedull- ed Castes by the higher castes in villages· are really manifostation . c1f the conflict between agricultural iabour or the agricultural serfs, as the members of the Scheduled Castes mostly are, on the one side and the land-holding class on the other.
It is wrong to describe them as oppression of the Scheduled Castes by the higher castes. If fo these circumstances some members of the Scheduled Castes in their protest against the system of untouchability resort to desperate mea- sures to erase the indignity of untouchability one cannot blame them. But whether it produces any result is a different question, however well-meaning such efforts may be. There may be other members of the community equally educated and equally conscious of the indig· nity of their being branded as untouchables who might still feel that the way to remove untouchability is not by changing one's religion. We have evidence in this c.ase that people who claim themselves to have become Buddhists have taken advantage of scholarships and other facilities granted by G-0vernment to members of
Scheduled Castes. Whether such concession to members of Scheduled Castes should also b~ extended to members of those castes who have changed their religion is a different question. Whether the Scheduled Castes Order should also describ~ such persons as members of the Scheduled Castes is very relevant to the present question. We are of opinion that the Scheduled Castes Order proceeds on a sound basis. The attempt of persons who have changed their religion from Hinduism . to Buddhism, who still claim the concessions and facilities . intended for Hindus only shows that otherwise th1!se persons might get a vested interest in continuing to be members of the Scheduled Castes. fo course of time vested interests are created in continuing to be memben·. of Schduled Castes as in continuing to be members of Backward Classes.
It is from the point of view of diseouraging that . tendency that the provisicm of the Scheduled Castes Order seems to be a proper one. We have said all this merely to show that this is not a case of black and white but a grew area where customs and habits of centuries along with some new ideas co-exist and it is difficult to say from a mari's attitude in respect of certain questions whether he is a Hindu or a Buddhist. Religion is essentially a highly personal matter and there the open assertion J>y a person especially an educated member of the society about the religion he professes should be given considerable weight over the interested testimony of others based on stray instances. We would, then)fore, in agreement with the High Court hold that the respondents 2, 6 and 9 are not Buddhists but continue to be members of the Scheduled Castes.
As regards fhe question of withdrawal by Ranjit Meshram the evi– dence of R.W. 2, the Returning Officer, shows that he knew Ranjit Meshram and that Ranjit gave the withdrawal letter, Ext. 70. As regards Ext.
Q9, of course, he is not quite sute. But his evidence that be knew Ranjit Meshram and that Ranjit Meshram himself gave the withdrawal letter Ext. 70 stands unrebutted. He is not able. to remember clearly the circumstances under which he made the endorse- c
GANPAT v. RETURNING OFFICER (Alagiriswami, /.) mcnt in Ext. 69 that it was given by Ranjit Meshram. It does not affect his evidence regarding Ext. 70. No mala {ides have been impu··
ted to him and we see no reason why we should not accept his evidence. Jn view of this and our finding that it has not been established that respendents 2, 6 and 9 are not professing Hinduism it is unnecessary to discuss the prayer regarding declaring the appellant elected. In the result the ·appeal is dismissed with the costs of the 2nd res- pondent to be paid by the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.