http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18  

PETITIONER: SHRI V. V. GIRI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIPPALA SURI DORA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/05/1959

BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. IMAM, SYED JAFFER KAPUR, J.L. WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1959 AIR 1318            1960 SCR  (1) 426

ACT: Election-Double member constituency-Reserved  seat-Scheduled Tribe  candidate  for  reserved seat,  if  can  be  declared elected to general seat--Provisions Permitting such  course, whether ultra vires -Hindu Law-Member of Scheduled Tribe  or Caste-When  can attain higher caste--Representation  of  the People  Act,  1951  (43  Of  1951),  S.   54(4)-Delimitation Commission Act, 1952 (81 Of 1952). s. 8.

HEADNOTE:    In  a double member Parliamentary constituency  one  seat was  reserved  for the scheduled tribes and  the  other  was general.   Four  persons  filed their  nominations  for  the election, G 1 and G 2 for the general seat and S1 and S2 for the  reserved  seat.   At  the polls  the  number  of  votes received by the candidates were in the following order:  S1, S2,  G1  and G2.  In accordance with the  provisions  of  s. 54(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, S1  was declared  elected  to  the reserved seat  and  S2,  who  had received  the largest number of votes out of  the  remaining candidates,  was declared elected to the general  seat.   G1 filed  an  election  petition for  a  declaration  that  the election  of S2 was void and for a further declaration  that he  had himself been duly elected to the general seat.   The petition  was based on three grounds, viz., (i) that upon  a proper interpretation Of S. 54(4) a candidate who had  filed his  nomination for the reserved seat could not be  declared elected   to   the  general  seat  ;  (ii)   that   if   the interpretation  be otherwise then s. 54(4) was ultra  vires; and  (iii) that S2 had ceased to be a member of a  scheduled tribe at the relevant time and his nomination was improperly accepted.  Held,  (Kapur,  J., dissenting) that, S2 was  properly  and validly   declared   elected.    The   provisions   of   the Constitution  and  of the Act show that the  election  in  a double   member   constituency  was  held  for   the   whole constituency  and not for the seats and a candidate who  had filed  nomination  as a member of the scheduled  tribes  was entitled  to  contest  for both the seats.  On  a  fair  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18  

reasonable  construction Of S. 54(4) Of the Act there  could be  no doubt that in a case like the present, after  S1  was declared  duly  elected  to the  reserved  seat,  the  votes secured  by  the  remaining  three  candidates  had  to   be considered  before  declaring the election for  the  general seat.   A  member of the scheduled tribe or  caste  did  not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because  he availed himself of the additional concession  of standing  for  the reserved seat by  making  the  prescribed declaration for that purpose.  It was not necessary for  him to file two nomination papers for the two seats.  Section 54(4) of the Act did not offend Art. 14 or Art. 330 Of the Constitution and was not unconstitutional. 427   Held, further, that the appellant had failed to  establish that S2 had ceased to be a member of the scheduled tribe and had become a Kshatriya.  Whatever may have been the-  origin of  Hindu  castes  and tribes in  ancient  times,  gradually castes  came  to  be based on birth  alone.   A  person  who belonged  by birth to a depressed caste or tribe would  find it  very difficult, if not impossible, to attain the  status of  a  higher caste by virtue of  his  volition,  education, culture and status.  The caste status of a person had to  be determined  in the light of the recognition received by  him from the members of the caste into which he sought an  entry ; unilateral acts of such a person asserting a higher status were not enough to establish the higher status.  It is to be hoped that this position will change, and in course of  time the  cherished  ideal  of castless society  truly  based  on social  equality will be attained under the powerful  impact of the doctrine of social justice and equality proclaimed by the  Constitution  and  sought  to  be  implemented  by  the relevant  statutes and as a result of the spread of  secular education and the growth of a rational outlook and of proper sense  of  social  values  ; but  at  present  it  would  be unrealistic  and utopian to ignore the difficulties which  a member  of  the  depressed tribe or caste  has  to  face  in claiming a higher status amongst his co-religionists.   Per  Kapur, J.-The election Of S2 to the general seat  was not  valid.  When a member of the scheduled tribe  or  caste offered himself for election to a reserved seat he could  be elected only to that seat and not to the general seat.   The provisions of the Constitution and of the Act show that  the election in a constituency was for filling of a seat in  the constituency  and not for a constituency.  When a  candidate offers  himself for election in a constituency, he  does  so for election to fill a seat in the constituency.  Therefore, if  a candidate wanted to contest both the seats he  had  to file two nomination papers one for the general seat and  the other for the reserved seat and he had to make two deposits. Section  8(2)  Of  the  Delimitation  Commission  Act,  1952 destroyed the effect of S. 54 of the Act.   Caste in Hinduism had its origin not on the basis of birth but  of  guna,  karma and subhavana  (quality,  actions  and character).   Caste  is  nothing  but  division  of  labour. Hinduism  might  have become static at one time;  it  is  no longer  so  and it is wrong to say that caste  is  dependent upon  birth and not on kayma i.e. action.  S. 2 had  by  his actions raised himself to the position of a Kshatriya and he was no longer a member of the scheduled tribe or caste.

JUDGMENT:   CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.  539  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18  

1958. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated March  13, 1958 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  Special Appeal No. 4 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and  order dated November 18, 1957, 428 of the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad in Election Petition No. 83 of 1957.   N. C.  Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and T.  Satyanarayana,  for the appellant.   P. Banta Reddy and R. Mahalingaiyer, for respondent No. 1.   S. S. Shukla, for respondent No. 2.  1959.  May 20.  The judgment of B. P. Sinha, Jafar Imam, P. B. Ganjendragadkar and K.N. Wanchoo, JJ. was delivered by P. B.  Gajendragadkar, J. J. L. Kapur, J. delivered a  separate judgment.   GAJENDRAGADKARJ.-This appeal by special leave, arises from an  election petition filed by Mr. V. V.  Giri  (hereinafter called the appellant) in which the validity of the  election of  Mr. Dippala Suri Dora (hereinafter called respondent  1) was   challenged.    The   Parliamentary   Constituency   of Parvatipuram  in  the State of Andhra Pradesh is  a  double- member constituency; one seat is reserved for the  scheduled tribes and the other is general.  In the General Election to the  House  of the people held in 1957 four  candidates  had been  nominated from the said constituency.   The  appellant and Mr. B. Satyanarayana Dora (hereinafter called respondent 2)  were adopted by the Congress Party, while  respondent  1 and  Mr.  ’V.   Krishnamoorthy  Naidu  (hereinafter   called respondent  3) were the candidates of the  Socialist  Party. For this constituency polling took place between February 25 and March 19, 1957, and the counting of votes disclosed that the   appellant  and  the  three  respondents  had   secured 1,24,039,    1,24,604,   1,26,792   and    1,18,968    votes respectively.   The result of the election was  declared  on March  19,  1957.  It was announced that  respondent  2  had been, elected to fill the reserved seat and respondent 1 the general  seat.  On April 16, 1957, the appellant  filed  the present  election  petition No. 83 of 1957  challenging  the validity  of  respondent  1’s  election.   He  alleged  that respondent  I  had offered himself as a  candidate  for  the reserved seat and as such he was not entitled to be  elected for the general seat.  In the alternative he urged that 429 respondent 1 was not a member of the scheduled tribe’ at the material  time  and so the declaration made by him  in  that behalf was false.  According to the appellant respondent 1’s nomination had, therefore, been L improperly accepted and it had  materially  affected  the election.  That  is  why  the appellant  claimed  a twofold declaration.   He  wanted  the tribunal to declare that the election of respondent I  under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of  1951) (hereinafter  called  the  Act) was void  and  that  he  had himself  been duly elected to the House of the  People  from the Parvatipuram Parliamentary Constituency for the  general and  non-reserved  seat.  These allegations were  denied  by respondent 1. Broadly stated the main part of the appellant’s case  rested on  two  grounds.   He  relied on the  fact  that  both  the Congress  and Socialist Parties had adopted  two  candidates each,  one  for  the reserved seat and  the  other  for  the general  seat.   Respondent  I  had  been  adopted  for  the reserved  seat  and  in the nomination forms  filed  on  his behalf  he had made the requisite declaration that he was  a member  of the scheduled tribe.# He conducted  his  election

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18  

campaign  on  the  basis that he was  a  candidate  for  the reserved seat and the voters must have voted for him on  the same basis.  If it is found that his rival candidate for the said reserved seat (respondent 2) secured a larger number of votes and so he was declared elected to fill the said  seat, it  is  not open to respondent  to claim  election  for  the general  seat.  If a candidate offers himself for one  seat, how  can  he  claim to be elected for the  other,  asks  the appellant. The appellant concedes that the reservation of seats for the scheduled castes or tribes is a special concession shown  to the  members  of the said castes and tribes in view  of  the fact  that they are educationally socially  and  financially very  backward;  it  is also conceded that  members  of  the scheduled castes or tribes are entitled to contest  election for the general seat; but the argument is that a member of a scheduled tribe must make up his mind and decide which  seat he  wishes to contest.  If he wants to contest  the  general seat he 430 may  do  so  and  in  that event  he  should  not  make  the prescribed declarations on his nomination form; on the other hand,  if  he wants to contest the reserved seat  he  should elect  to  do so, make the necessary  declaration  and  then concentrate his attention on the reserved seat.  Having once made his election he cannot subsequently fall back upon  his right  to be elected for the general seat.   Thus  presented the  argument  no  doubt appears to be  plausible  and  even attractive.  Respondent  1,  however,  dispute  the  validity  of   this contention.   His case is that the reservation of  seats  is intended  as  an additional and special  concession  to  the scheduled castes or tribes.  That, however, does not  affect the  right  of the members of the said castes or  tribes  to claim along with the other citizens of the country the right to  be  elected  to  the  general  seat.   In  other  words, according  to respondent 1, a member of the scheduled  tribe is entitled to claim election either to the reserved seat or to  the general seat in a double-member constituency,  where one  seat  is reserved for the scheduled tribes  or  castes. When  a  member of the scheduled tribe makes  a  declaration about his status on his nomination form it merely means that he  claims  the  additional benefit of  being  eligible  for election  to  the reserved seat.  If in the  fight  for  the reserved  seat his rival candidate defeats him, that  cannot detract from, or affect, his right to claim election to  the general  seat; and if the voters in the constituencies  have expressed their confidence in him by putting him at the  top amongst  the remaining candidates, he is entitled  to  claim election to the said general seat.  The object of  reserving seats obviously is to create confidence in the minds of  the backward  castes  and tribes and to give them  an  assurance about  their welfare and future in the political set  up  of the  country.   This  object necessarily  implies  that  the members  of the said castes and tribes should have a  double opportunity   of  seeking  election  from  a   double-member constituency. Respondent 1 does not concede that he contested the election solely for the reserved seat.  It is admitted on his  behalf that  he did make the necessary declaration and he may  have brought it to the notice of the voters 431 that  he  was  a member of the scheduled  tribe.   That  was inevitable  since  he  was claiming to be  elected  for  the reserved  seat.   It  is,  however, urged  that  if  in  law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18  

election took place for the constituency as a whole, and not for  separate  seats,  the fact that  his  nomination  paper referred  to " the reserved constituency " and some  of  his statements  during  the  course of  his’  election  campaign mentioned  the  fact that he was t member of  the  scheduled tribe  would  not prejudicially affect his  right  to  claim election  for the general seat.  Incidentally  respondent  I claimed that the declaration of his election to the  general seat  in fully consistent with the express provisions of  s. 54(4)  of  the Act, whereas the appellant pleaded  in  reply that   the  construction  sought  to  be  placed  upon   the provisions of s. 54(4) by respondent I was unreasonable  and if not the said provision was ultra vires.  On the three major points which thus arose for decision  in the  present  election  petition the  Election  Tribunal  at Hyderabad  and  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh   have differed.  The Tribunal upheld the appellant’s  contentions, made  the  two declarations claimed by him and  allowed  his election  petition with costs.  On appeal to the High  Court the  points  made by respondent I have  been  accepted,  the findings  made by the tribunal and the declarations  granted by it have been reversed and the appellant’s election  peti- tion  dismissed  with  costs  throughout.   The  appellant’s application  for  a certificate was dismissed  by  the  High Court.   Thereupon  he applied to this  Court  and  obtained special  leave to appeal.  That is how this appeal has  come before us.  What  then  is the true constitutional and  legal  position with regard to the election to the House of the People  from a double-member constituency where one seat is reserved  for the  members of the scheduled tribes or castes?  The  answer to  this  question  would  depend upon  the  effect  of  the relevant   provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  the   Act respectively.  Let us first examine the relevant articles of the constitution.   Article  325  provides  that there shall  be  one  general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for 432 election  to either House of Parliament and that  no  person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll or  claim to  be  included  in any such electoral roll  for  any  such constituency  on grounds only of religion, race, caste,  sex or any of them.  Article 326 which deals inter alia with the elections to the House of the People lays down that the said elections  shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, that  is to  say, every person who is a citizen of India and  who  is not  less than 21 years of age at the relevant date  and  is not otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the grounds specified shall  be entitled to be registered as a voter at  any  such election.   It  is  thus clear that the  electoral  roll  is prepared on a purely secular basis without any reference  to religion, race, caste or sex and that the qualification  for being  included  as a voter on the said  electoral  roll  is likewise  wholly secular and of general application  to  all citizens in the country. Let  us  then  refer  to the articles  that  deal  with  the composition of the House of the People and qualification for membership  of  Parliament.  Article 81  (1)  provides  that subject  to  the  provisions of Art. 331 the  House  of  the People shall consist inter alia of not more than 500 members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the  States.  This article contemplates the division of  the States  into territorial constituencies and it provides  for the election of 500 members from these constituencies to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18  

House of the People.  Article 84 deals with the question  of qualification  and  it provides that a person shall  not  be qualified  to  be chosen to fill a seat  in  the  Parliament unless  he is (a) a citizen of India, (b) in the case  of  a seat  in the House of the People not less than 25  years  of age,  and (c) possesses such other qualifications as may  be prescribed  in  that  behalf by or under  any  law  made  by Parliament.  It  is  by  virtue of Art. 84(c) that  the  Parliament  has passed  the  two  relevant  statutes.   They  are  the   Re- presentation  of the People Act, 1950 (Act 43 of  1950)  and the Act.  We will presently refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.  Meanwhile we would like to 433 refer  to another article of the Constitution which is  very important.   It is Art. 330.  It occurs in Pt.  XVI  of  the Constitution which deals with special provisions relating to certain  classes.  It provides for the reservation of  seats for  scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the  House  of the  People.   Article  331 lays down that  seats  shall  be reserved  in  the  House  of  the  -People  for  the   three categories  enumerated in (a), (b) and (c).  In the  present case  we are concerned with the second category which  deals with  the scheduled tribes.  Article 330(2)  provides  inter alia that the number of seats reserved in any State for  the scheduled  tribes under sub-Art.(1) shall bear as nearly  as may  be  the same proportion to the total  number  of  seats allotted  to  that State in the House of the People  as  the population  of the scheduled tribes in the State or part  of the  State as the case may be in respect of which seats  are so  reserved  bears  to the population  of  the  State.   In providing  for  the  members of  the  scheduled  tribes  the special  concession  by  way of  reservation  of  seats  the Constitution has adopted the fair, just and equitable method of fixing the number of the said reserved seats on the basis of  the proportion mentioned in Art. 330(2).  Whilst we  are referring  to this article we may incidentally mention  Art. 334 which provides that the reservation of seats provided by Art.  330 shall cease to have effect on the expiration of  a period   of   ten  years  from  the  commencement   of   the Constitution subject to the proviso. Thus  it is clear that election to the House of  the  People even  from  a double-member constituency where one  seat  is reserved for the members of the scheduled tribes in one, and though  the  Constitution  shows  just  anxiety  to   afford necessary protection to the members of the scheduled tribes, it  deliberately  refused to adopt the  system  of  separate electorates.   The constituency is one and election is  held to  the  said  constituency from one  joint  electoral  roll prepared on the basis of qualifications which are of general and   uniform  application.   In  regard  to   double-member constituencies  like Parvatipuram the Constitution  has  not even   adopted  the  course  of  providing  for  a   special constituency 55 434 confined to the members of the scheduled tribe.  All that is done  is  to provide for the reservation of  seats  for  the members  of the said tribes or castes in the manner  already indicated.   Even  for the reserved seat all voters  in  the constituency  are  entitled to vote.  The reservation  of  a seat  in  a double-member  constituency  cannot,  therefore, affect the main basic position that the constituency is  one and for returning representatives to the House of the People it is the same joint electorate that goes to the poll.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18  

Let  us  now  proceed to consider the  position  under  the relevant  provisions of the Act.  It is necessary  to  begin with  the  definitions  of  parliamentary  constituency  and election.  Section 2(f) of the Representation of the  People Act, 43 of 1950, defines a " parliamentary constituency " as meaning  a constituency provided by law for the  purpose  of elections to the House of the People; whereas s. 2(d) of the Act  defines "election-" to mean an election to fill a  seat or   seats  inter  alia  in  House  of  Parliament.    These definitions  show  that it is a  parliamentary  constituency that  sends  the representatives to fill the  seats  in  the House   of  the  People.   Elections  are  held  from   such constituencies and candidates declared duly elected fill the seats in the House of Parliament to which they are  elected. Section  4  prescribes qualification for membership  of  the House  of the People.  Section 4(b) provides that  a  person shall  not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat  in  the House  of the People unless in the case of a  seat  reserved for  the  scheduled  tribes he is a member  of  any  of  the scheduled  tribes  and is an elector for  any  parliamentary constituency.   This  section expressly  provides  what  was clearly   implicit   in  the  relevant   articles   of   the Constitution that before a person can claim to be elected to fill  a seat reserved for the scheduled tribes he must be  a member  of the said tribes besides being an elector for  the parliamentary  constituency in question.  Section  32  deals with  the  nomination  of candidates  for  election  and  it provides that any person may be nominated as a candidate for election  to fill a seat if he is qualified to be chosen  to fill a seat under the provisions of the Constitution and the Act.  The next section 435 to  consider  is s. 33.  It deals with the  presentation  of nomination  papers  and prescribes the  requirements  for  a valid  nomination.   Section  33(2)  is  relevant  for   our purpose.   It provides that any constituency where any  seat is reserved a candidate shall not be deemed to be  qualified to  be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination  paper contains  a  declaration by him  specifying  the  particular tribe  of which he is a member and the area in  relation  to which the tribe is a scheduled tribe of the State.   Section 33(6)  lays down that nothing in this section shall  prevent any  candidate  from  being  nominated  by  more  than   one nomination paper for election in the same constituency.  The effect of s. 33(2) is that unless a member of the  scheduled tribe  makes  the  required  declaration  he  would  not  be entitled  to claim election to the reserved seat.  In  other words,  if a member of the scheduled tribe does not want  to be considered -for election to the reserved seat be need not make  the  said declaration; and in that case  be  would  be entitled to contest the election only for the general  seat. But  it does not follow that if a scheduled tribe  candidate makes the said declaration he forfeits his right to  contest for the general seat.  It is necessary to point out at  this stage  that  the prescribed nomination paper  (Form  24)  is common  to all the candidates.  In regard to the  candidates contesting   for  the  reserved  seat,  however,  the   form prescribes the declaration which they are required to  make. In  the  matter  of  deposits  required  by  s.  34  another concession is made in favour of the members of the scheduled castes or tribes; whereas ’in the case of an election from a parliamentary constituency a candidate is required to make a deposit  of  Rs. 500 the amount is fixed at Rs. 250  in  the case  of  members  of scheduled castes  or  tribes.   It  is significant that this concession is not confined to  members

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18  

of the scheduled tribe contesting the election only for  the reserved seat.  It is available to them even if they want to contest  only for the general seat.  Section 35  requires  a notice  of  nominations  and  a time  and  place  for  their scrutiny  to  be  published; and s. 38 requires  a  list  of contesting  candidates to be published, The  two  prescribed forms for 436 the said notices are Forms 3A and 4 ;_they make no reference to  the two respective seats and give the particulars  about all  the candidates in the respective columns.  It  is  true that in col. (6) of Form 3A particulars of caste or tribe of candidates  belonging  to  scheduled castes  or  tribes  are required  to  be  mentioned.  That is  consistent  with  the requirement  of  s. 33(2).  It would thus be seen  that  the scheme  of  the  relevant provisions of the  Act,  like  the scheme  of  the relevant articles of  the  Constitution,  is clear.   The  election  to the House of the  People  from  a double-member  constituency is held as an election from  the whole of the constituency as such.  It is on that basis that the  nomination  papers  are  required  to  be  filed.   The notifications  about the nominations are published  and  the list of the validly nominated candidates is announced on the same  basis.   The counting of votes is  similarly  made  by reference to all the candidates.  It is only when the result of  the election is prepared for declaration that the  votes of candidates who have made the prescribed declarations  are first  taken into account and the result of the election  in respect  of the reserved seat is first determined, and  then the votes secured by the remaining candidates are taken into account and the result of the election for the other general seat is determined and declared. Section  63 of the Act would also assist us in deciding  the point  in  dispute  between the  parties.   Section  63  (1) provides  for the method of voting and it lays down that  in plural-member    constituencies    other    than     Council constituencies  every  elector shall have as many  votes  as there  are  members to be elected but no member  shall  give more than one vote to any one candidate.  It is not disputed that voters in a double-member constituency are not bound to vote in reference to the two seats.  If the Act had intended that  the election in such a constituency should take  place by  reference  to the two respective seats,  it  would  have provided for voting by the electors on that basis, and would have   required   the  voters  to  cast  their   two   votes respectively  by reference to the two seats.  Section  63(1) on the other hand allows voters to cast their two 437 votes to any two candidates of their choice whether both  of them  claim  to  be elected to the general seat  or  to  the reserved  seat  or  one of them claims one  seat  and  other claims  the  other.  This method of voting  is  inconsistent with  the appellant’s case that the election to the  double- member constituency is held seat wise. Section  54(4)  emphatically brings out the  same  position. Section  54 (1) provides that it shall apply in relation  to any election in a constituency where the seats to be  filled include one or more seats reserved for the scheduled  castes or scheduled tribes.  Subsection (4) reads thus:-               "  If  the  number  of  contesting  candidates               qualified  to be chosen to fill  the  reserved               seats  exceeds the number of such  seats,  and               the total number of contesting candidates also               exceeds  the  total  number  of  seats  to  be               filled, a poll shall be taken ; and after  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18  

             poll  has  been taken, the  returning  officer               shall first declare those who, being qualified               to be chosen to fill the reserved seats,  have               secured  the  largest number of votes,  to  be               duly  elected to fill the reserved seats,  and               then declare such of the remaining  candidates               as have secured the largest number of votes to               be duly elected to fill the remaining seats."  On  a fair and a reasonable construction of this  provision there can be no doubt that in a case like the present, after respondent 2 was declared duly elected to the reserved seat, the  votes secured by the remaining three candidates had  to be   considered  before  declaring  the  election  for   the unreserved  seat  and that is precisely what  the  returning officer has done when he declared that respondent I had been duly  elected  to the said seat.  The illustration  to  this sub-section  makes this position absolutely clear.  This  is how the illustration reads:-               "  At  an election in a constituency  to  fill               four seats of which two are reserved there are               six contesting candidates A, B, C, D, E and F,               and they - secure votes in descending order, A               securing  the largest number, B, C and  D  are               qualified  to be chosen to fill  the  reserved               seats, while A, E and F               438               are  not so qualified.  The returning  officer               will  first  declare B and C duly  elected  to               fill the two reserved seats, and then  declare               A  and D (not A and E) to fill  the  remaining               two seats." In  our  opinion s. 54(4) and the  illustration  are  wholly consistent with the relevant provisions of the  Constitution and of the Act. Whilst  we are dealing with s. 54 we may incidentally  refer to  the  appellant’s argument based on s. 6(2)  (c)  of  the Delimitation  Commission  Act,  1952  (81  of  1952)   which provides  that  in every two-member  constituency  one  seat shall be reserved either for the scheduled castes or for the scheduled  tribes,  and  the other seat  shall  not  be  -so reserved.   It is urged that in view of this  provision  the case  contemplated by the illustration to s. 54 (4)  is  not likely to occur any more and in that sense the  illustration has  become  otiose.   That may be true.  But  even  so  the significance  of the illustration lies in the fact  that  it clarifies  and  explains concretely how the  reservation  of seats for the depressed castes and tribes will actually work out in elections in the relevant constituencies. There  is  another argument which -nay be noticed.   It  was faintly  suggested by the appellant that s. 54(4)  is  ultra vires since it is inconsistent with Arts. 14 and 330 of  the Constitution.   One has merely to recall the  provisions  of Art.  15  (3) and (4) to reject the argument that  s.  54(4) offends  against Art. 14.  As regards Art 330 it is  obvious that  the  reservation  of seats  as  therein  specified  is intended  to  guarantee  a minimum number of  seats  to  the scheduled  castes  and tribes; therefore if members  of  the said  castes and tribes secure additional seats by  election to general unreserved seats there would be no repugnancy  at all.  There is no substance in the contention that s. 54 (4) is ultra vires. There  is one more section of the Act to -  which  reference must be made.  It is s. 55.  For the avoidance of doubt this section  declares that a member of the scheduled  castes  or scheduled tribes shall not be disqualified to hold the  seat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18  

not reserved for members of those castes or tribes if he  is otherwise qualified to 439 hold  such seat under the Constitution and the Act.  If  the appellant’s  contention is upheld then the provisions of  s. 55 would be inapplicable to a member of the scheduled  tribe solely  because he has made the. prescribed  declaration  in his  nomination  form in order to claim the benefit  of  the concession of the reserved seat in his constituency.  We see no  justification  for  adopting  such  an  artificial   and restricted  construction  of s. 55.  In our opinion  s.  55, like  s.  54(4),  is  consistent  with  the  other  relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Act.  A member of the scheduled tribe is entitled to contest for the reserved seat and  for  that purpose he can and must make  the  prescribed declaration;  but it does not follow that because he  claims the benefit of the reserved seat and conforms to the  statu- tory  requirement  in  that behalf,  he  is  precluded  from contesting the election, if necessary, for the general seat. Once   it  is  realised  that  the  election  is  from   the constituency as a whole and not by reference to two separate and distinct Beats there would be no difficulty in accepting the  view  taken by the returning officer when  he  declared respondent I to have been duly elected for the general seat.  It is true that some articles of the Constitution and  some sections  of  the  Act refer to  seats  in  connection  with election  to  the House of the People.  For  instance,  when Art.  81 (2) (b) provides for the same ratio throughout  the State  between the population of each constituency  and  the number of seats allotted to it, it does refer to seats,  but in the context the use of the word " seats " was inevitable. Similarly Art. 84 which lays down the qualification for  the members  of Parliament begins by saying that a person  shall not  be  qualified  to  be chosen " to  fill  a  seat  "  in Parliament  unless he satisfies the tests prescribed by  its cls. (a), (b) and (c).  Here again the expression " to  fill a  seat " had to be used in the context.  The  same  comment can be made about the use of the word " seat " in Arts.  101 (2) and in 330.  There is no doubt that when a candidate  is duly  elected  from  any constituency to the  House  of  the People  he  fills  a  seat  in  the  House  as  an   elected representative of the said constituency; 440 and so the expression " filling the seat " is naturally used whenever the context so requires.  The position in regard to the sections of the Act which use the  word  "  seat " or the expression "fill  the  seat"  is exactly similar.  Section 32 of the Act says that any person may  be  nominated as a candidate for election  to  "fill  a seat" if he is qualified in that behalf.  This section  does not mean that the nomination of a person as a candidate  for election  is  for  a  seat;  such  nomination  is  for   the constituency.   After  the  election  is  over  the  elected candidate  is qualified to fill a seat in the House  of  the People to which he is elected.  It is in that sense that the expression  "  a candidate for election to fill a  seat"  is used in this section.  The use of the same expression in ss. 33(2), 53(2), 54 and 55 bears the same interpretation.   The use  of  the said expression or the reference to  "seat"  in some of the articles of the Constitution or the sections  of the Act does not, therefore, mean that election to the House of the People from a double-member constituency is held  not for the constituency as a whole but by reference to the  two seats. There  is.  no  doubt  that in  the  case  of  double-member

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18  

constituencies  recognised political parties  usually  adopt two  candidates, one for the general seat and the other  for the  reserved  seat;  and  it does  appear  that  under  the relevant  statutory order issued by the Election  Commission the  symbol reserved for the party is allotted to both  such candidates with the only difference that the symbol allotted to  the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe candidate  of the  party is the particular symbol enclosed within a  thick black circle.  This order has been issued for convenience in order  to  enable the very large number  of  illiterate  and uneducated voters to identify the political affiliations  of the  candidates  for  election; and to  show  which  of  the candidates are eligible for the reserved seat; but the  said order  cannot affect the nature of the election nor does  it purport  to do so.  Similarly a candidate who has  made  the prescribed   declaration  under  s.  33  may  withdraw   his candidature  under  s.  37 which would mean that  he  is  no longer contesting any seat in the 441 constituency;  but that again cannot justify  the  inference that  his candidature was in regard to a reserved  seat  for which election was separately intended to be held.  In fact, in   regard   to  a  double-member   constituency   election recognises  no  compartments  at  all;  it  is  one  general election with reservation of seats; that is all.  It was then contended by the appellant that even if it  may be open to a member of the scheduled tribe to seek  election either for the reserved seat or failing that for the general seat he ought to file two. nomination papers in that behalf. In  our opinion this contention is not wellfounded.   It  is conceded that there is no provision for the presentation  of two  nomination papers for two different seats in  the  same constituency.    Indeed   such  an   assumption   would   be inconsistent with the basic character of the election from a double-member constituency.  In our opinion, the true  posi- tion is that a member of a scheduled caste or tribe does not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because  he avails himself of the additional  concession  of the  reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration  for that  purpose.   The claim of eligibility for  the  reserved seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it  is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be  decided on  the  basis that there is one election from  the  double- member constituency. In  this  connection we may refer by way of analogy  to  the provisions   made  in  some  educational  institutions   and universities   whereby  in  addition  to  the   prizes   and scholarships awarded on general competition amongst all  the candidates,  some prizes and scholarships are  reserved  for candidates  belonging  to  backward  communities.   In  such cases,  though  the  backward candidates  may  try  for  the reserved  prizes  and scholarships, they are  not  precluded from  claiming  the  general  prizes  and  scholarships   by competition  with  the  rest of  the  candidates.   We  are, therefore,  satisfied  that  the High  Court  was  right  in rejecting the appellant’s contention that respondent 1 could not have been validly elected 56 442 for the general seat from the constituency of Parvatipuram. That  takes us to the alternative contention raised  by  the appellant  against the validity of respondent 1’s  election. That  contention  is that respondent I had ceased  to  be  a member  of the scheduled tribe at the material time  because he had become a kshatriya.  In dealing with this  contention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18  

it  would  be  essential  to bear  in  mind  the  broad  and recognized  features  of the hierarchical  social  structure prevailing amongst the Hindus.  It is not necessary for  our present purpose to trace the origin and growth of the  caste system. amongst the Hindus. it would be enough to state that whatever may have been the origin of Hindu castes and tribes in ancient times, gradually castes came to be based on birth alone.   It is wellknown that a person who belongs by  birth to a depressed caste or tribe would find it very  difficult, if  not impossible, to attain the status of a  higher  caste amongst  the  Hindus by virtue of his  volition,  education, culture  and status.  The history of social reform  for  the last century and more has shown how difficult it is to break or even to relax the rigour of the inflexible and  exclusive character of the caste system.  It is to be hoped that  this position  will change, and in course of time  the  cherished ideal  of casteless society truly based on  social  equality will  be attained under the powerful impact of the  doctrine of   social   justice  and  equality   proclaimed   by   the Constitution  and sought to be implemented by  the  relevant statutes and as a result of the spread of secular  education and the growth of a rational outlook and of proper sense  of social  values; but at present it would be  unrealistic  and utopian  to  ignore the difficulties which a member  of  the depressed  tribe or caste has to face in claiming  a  higher status  amongst his coreligionists.  It is in the  light  of this  background that the alternative plea of the  appellant must be considered. The  evidence  adduced by respondent I shows  that  all  the documents from 1885 to 1928 consistently described him as  a Mukka  Dora  or  a  member  of  the  scheduled  tribe.   The appellant has, however, produced documentary evidence  which indicates that from 1928 443 onwards  respondent 1 has described himself and the  members of  his  family as belonging to the kshatriya  caste.   Oral evidence  led  by  the appellant is intended  to  show  that respondent 1 has for some years past adopted the customs and the rituals of the kshatriya caste.  It shows that marriages in  the family of respondent I are celebrated as they  would be  amongst  the kshatriyas, and homa is performed  on  such occasions.  It is also attempted to be shown that the family of  respondent   is  connected by marriage  ties  with  some kshatriya families, that a Brahmin priest officiates at  the religious ceremonies performed by respondent 1, and that  he wears a sacred thread.  The High Court has held that even if the  documentary and oral evidence adduced by the  appellant is  accepted  at  its  face value, it  falls  far  short  of establishing   his  plea  that  respondent   had  become   a kshatriya  at  the  material time.  The  caste-status  of  a person   in  the  context  would  necessarily  have  to   be determined  in the light of the recognition received by  him from the members of the caste into which he seeks an  entry. There  is  no evidence on this point at  all..  Besides  the evidence produced by the appellant merely shows some acts by respondent 1 which no doubt were intended to assert a higher status;  but  unilateral acts of this  character  cannot  be easily  taken to prove that the claim for the higher  status which the said acts purport to make is established.  That is the  view which the High Court has taken and in our  opinion the   High  Court  is  absolutely  right.    Therefore   the alternative plea made by the appellant cannot succeed.  In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with  costs in favour of respondent 1. KAPUR  J.- I regret I am unable to agree with  the  judgment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18  

prepared  by my learned brother Gajendragadkar and  I  shall proceed to give my reasons for my dissent.  In  an election for Parliament the candidate asks  for  the votes  of the electors by offering himself for a seat  in  a parliamentary constituency and it is a fundamental principle of  elections  that the. voters exercise their  suffrage  in favour of a candidate who is standing 444 for  a  particular  seat  in a single or  in  a  two  member constituency.  The language used in the Constitution as well as  in  the Election Laws tends to show  that  the  election though in a constituency is for the filling of a seat and it is  for  the  filling  of that seat that  the  voters  in  a constituency exercise their right to vote.  The Constitution itself  shows that the election is for filling a seat  in  a constituency. The  scheme  of the Constitution itself when it  deals  with Parliament  and election to Parliament supports  this  view. Parliament, its composition and qualification for membership of Parliament are dealt with in Chapter 11 of Part V of  the Constitution.  Article 81 deals with the composition of  the House of the People.  Sub-cl. (a) of cl. (1) of Art. 81 lays down that there shall be not more than 500 Members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies and not more than 20 Members to represent Union territories.  Clause  (2) of  Art. 81 provides that to each State shall be allotted  a certain  number of seats in the House of the People in  such manner  that the ratio between the number and population  of the  State  is  the  same for all  States  and  sub-cl.  (b) provides  that the State shall be divided  into  territorial constituencies  in  such manner that the ratio  between  the population  of  each constituency and the  number  of  seats allotted to it is the same throughout the State.  Article 84 provides  for the qualifications of persons to be chosen  to fill  a  seat in Parliament and in el. (c) it is  laid  down that  the qualifications shall be such as may be  prescribed by an Act of Parliament.  Part XV deals with Elections.  Under Art. 324 there is  one general  electoral roll for every  territorial  constituency and there is no exclusion from such roll on the ground  only of  religion,  race,  caste,  creed, sex  or  any  of  them. Article  327  confers  on  Parliament  the  power  to   make provision  with respect to elections to Legislatures.   Part XVI  of the Constitution make special provision relating  to certain classes and under Art. 330 seats are reserved in the House  of  the  People for Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes  and it also provides for the proportion  that  these seats shall bear to the 445 total  number  of  seats  allotted  to  any  State  and  the reservation of seats and special representation are to cease after  10 years (Art. 334).  These provisions show that  the emphasis  is  on seats.  The number seats is fixed  so  also reserved  seats and election is to fill a seat and for  that purpose  qualifications  of  candidates  are  prescribed  by Parliamentary legislation. A  perusal of those various articles mentioned  above  shows that  there  is  no separate electoral  roll  and  that  the elections  are on the basis of joint  electorate.   Although there is reservation of seats for the Scheduled castes there is  no exclusion of - Scheduled Castes or  Scheduled  Tribes from what are called general seats and every citizen without any consideration of caste, creed or sex is entitled to vote as  well  as  stand for election provided  he  is  otherwise qualified.  The reservation of  seats was a concession given

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18  

to  the Scheduled Castes and Tribes because of their  social and  educational  backwardness  and it had to  have  only  a temporary  existence and it must be conceded  that  although there is a reservation of a certain number of seats for  the Scheduled  Castes and Tribes the members of these castes  or tribes are not excluded from contesting general seats.  In order to carry out the intention of the Constitution  in regard to elections two Acts were enacted by the Parliament. The  Representation  of  People’s Act, 1950,  (43  of  1950) (hereinafter called the 1950 Act) and the Representation  of People’s  Act  1951, (43 of 1951), (hereinafter  called  the 1951  Act).  The object of the 1950 Act was to  provide  for allocation  of seats and delimitation of constituencies  for election  and the object of the 1951 Act was to provide  for the  conduct of elections to the Houses of  Parliament  etc. and the qualifications and disqualifications for membership. In  s. 2(f) of the 1950 Act a Parliamentary constituency  is defined  as  a  constituency provided  for  the  purpose  of election to the House of the People.  In Part II of that Act provision  is made for the allocation of seats in the  House of the People and for reservation of seats in that House for Scheduled Castes and Tribes for filling up of seats in  that House and all these provisions 446 show  that the seats in the House of the People allotted  to the  various States have to be filled by  direct  elections. It is significant that in all these provisions the word used is ’seat’ and the election is to fill a-seat.   Coming to the 1951 Act, election is defined in s. 2(d)  to mean an election to fill a seat or seats in either House  of Parliament........... In s. 2(e) an elector means the person whose   name  is  entered  in  the  electoral  roll   of   a constituency.   Section  4  of the 1951 Act  lays  down  the qualifications for membership of the House of the People and a  person is not qualified to be chosen to fill  a  reserved seat in the House unless he is a member of a Scheduled Caste or  Tribe  and  he  is  an  elector  for  any  Parliamentary constituency.   In  the  case of any  other  seat  the  only qualification  required  is  that  he is  an  elector  in  a Parliamentary  constituency.  Part V of 1951 Act deals  with nomination  of candidates.  Section 31 provides  for  public notice  of elections and s. 32 for nomination of  candidates for election.  Under this section no person may be nominated as  a  candidate for election to fill a seat  unless  he  is qualified  to  fill  that  seat.   Section  33  deals   with presentation of nomination papers and the requirements for a valid  nomination.   Under  sub-s. (1)  a  nomination  paper completed  in  the prescribed form and  signed  as  required under  that provision has to be presented to  the  Returning Officer  and  under sub-s. (2) where in a  constituency  any seat is reserved the candidate is not qualified to be chosen to  fill  that seat unless his nomination papers  contain  a declaration by him specifying the caste or tribe to which he belongs  and sub-s. (6) provides that a candidate  can  file more  than  one nomination paper for election  in  the  same constituency.   Under  s.  34 for  a  valid  nomination  for election  a  deposit  has to be made which in  the  case  of members  of  Scheduled Castes or Tribes is Rs.  250  and  in other cases Rs. 500.   The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was  that these  various  provisions  of the 1951 Act  show  that  the election  is for filling a seat and therefore when a  member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe contests an election he  has to make a choice as to which seat he is 447

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18  

contesting.   There is no prohibition against  his  standing for election for the general constituency but if he wants to do  so  he  has to indicate to the electors that  he  is  so standing  because when the electors vote they vote  for  the election of the candidate to that particular seat and to  no other.  This is made further clear by the fact that only one vote  out  of the two which every elector has the  right  to cast can be polled in favour of one candidate.    Every  candidate has to have a symbol the  necessity  for which  arises  because  of the  illiteracy  of  the  general electorate.  Each party has allotted to it a symbol.  In the present case the successful candidate Mr. Dippala Suri  Dora was  standing  for  the  reserved  seat  on  behalf  of  the Socialist  Party and had been allotted the symbol of a  tree which was his party symbol.  In the case of a reserved  seat the  distinguishing  feature is the black circle  round  the symbol  so that the electors would know where to cast  their vote  in the case of a Scheduled Caste or  Tribe  candidate. It  is  true  that  the Form 2A  is  the  same  whether  the candidate  is contesting a reserved seat or a  general  seat but in the case of a person contesting a reserved seat there is  a  further  declaration to be made that  he  belongs  to Scheduled  Caste or Tribe.  It is also true that in Form  3A when notice of nomination is given the Form used is the same for  both  the  seats but in column (6)  of  this  Form  the particulars of the caste or tribe are to be given presumably to show which of the candidates belongs to a Scheduled Caste or  Tribe  otherwise indicating the  caste  is  meaningless. Similarly  in  Form  7A  which is  for  the  final  list  of contesting candidates after withdrawals have taken place the names of candidates are given along with their addresses and symbols allotted to them but candidates belonging to members of  the  Scheduled  Castes or Tribes  are  distinguished  by separate  special  marks  against their  names.   All  these distinguishing features have been provided so that  electors when  they cast votes for the various candidates know  which of  them  is  contesting  the reserved  seat  and  which  is contesting the general seat.  If that is not the object  the giving of the caste would be meaningless, if not against the ideal of castelessness, 448 it was contended that s. 32 only deals with nominations  for election  to  fill  a seat but it has  nothing  to  do  with qualifications which are laid down in s. 33 and that sub-ss. (2)  and  (6) of s. 33 showed that the election  was  for  a constituency  and not for a seat but this  argument  ignores the  definition of election which means election to  fill  a seat   and  therefore  where  the  word   ’election’  in   a constituency  is used it is to be construed as  election  to fill  a seat in a constituency.  Besides sub-s. 2 of  s.  33 makes  it clear that a candidate cannot be qualified  to  be chosen  to fill a reserved seat in a constituency unless  he makes a particular declaration.  The emphasis is again on  a seat.  It is true that a candidate has to make a deposit for due  nomination  for election from a constituency  but  here again the word ’election’ must be read as election to fill a seat  from a constituency.  These various sections  indicate therefore  and  particularly  the  definition  of  the  word election  in s. 2(d) of the 1951 Act that when  a  candidate offers himself for election in a constituency he does so  to fill a particular seat in a constituency.  At a pole every elector can cast one vote in favour of  one candidate  and  another  in  favour  of  another.   It   was contended  that it was open to an elector to cast  both  his votes in favour of the two candidates standing for a general

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18  

seat or the two candidates for the reserved seat or one  for the  general seat and the other for reserved seat  and  that there  was no law which enjoins an elector to cast one  vote for  the general seat and the other for the  reserved  seat. But this will lead us nowhere because if there are only four candidates as they were in the present case two belonging to Scheduled  Castes  or  Tribes and  two  non-Scheduled  Caste candidates  then the voter who casts both his votes one  for one  Scheduled Caste and the other for the other or one  for the  non-Scheduled  Caste and the other for the  other  non- Scheduled  Caste candidate would be wasting his votes.   One has to presume that the elector when he takes the trouble of going to the polling booth and to vote is not going to waste his votes. 449 In the present case the party which set up Mr. Dippala  Suri Dora  set  him  up as a candidate for  the  Scheduled  Caste constituency  which is clear from the application on  behalf of  the party setting him up.  The final list of  candidates for  Parliament Ext.P3(c) also shows that Mr.  Dippala  Suri Dora was a candidate -for the reserved seat in  Parvatipuram double-member constituency. - The nomination papers filed by him also show that he was being nominated for election  from the Parvatipuram reserved parliamentary constituency.   Thus as far as Mr. Dippala Suri Dora was concerned he had made it quite  clear  to the electorate that he  was  seeking  their suffrage for filling a reserved seat in the constituency and in  this  view of the matter as far as he and  the  electors were concerned the contest was for the reserved seat and not the  general seat and the people voted for him  for  filling the reserved seat and not the general seat.  Counsel for the respondent Mr. Dippala Suri Dora  submitted that  the  mere fact that respondent  filed  his  nomination papers  in  a particular manner does not  give  a  different interpretation  to the various provisions of the law and  if under  the law a nomination like that of the respondent  Mr. Dippala  Suri Dora was a nomination for both the  seats  the mere fact that he had filled his form differently would make no  difference.   This contention is correct but as  I  have indicated  above  the  election is to fill  a  seat  in  the constituency  and the nomination must be taken to fill  that seat and no, other.  Reliance  was next placed on ss. 53, 54 and 55 of the  1951 Act  to  support  the  case put forward  on  behalf  of  the respondent Mr. Dippala Suri Dora.  No doubt in sub-s.(4)  of s.  54  it is laid down that in a case where the  number  of contesting  candidates  qualified to be chosen to  fill  the reserved seat exceeds the number of such seats and the total also  exceeds the total number of seats to be  filled,  then after  the  poll  has been  taken  the  qualified  candidate receiving the largest number of votes for the reserved  seat has  to be declared elected and then such of  the  remaining candidates as have secured the largest number of votes  have to be declared 57 450 elected to fill the remaining seats and there is an  illust- ration  added to the section which supports the case of  the respondent.   But  in  view  of s.  8  of  the  Delimitation Commission   Act,   1952,   which   makes   provisions   for readjustments  and  delimitations  it  is  doubtful  if  the provisions  of s. 54(4) retain their efficacy.  Under  s.  8 cl.(2)   of  Delimitation  Act  it  is  provided  that   all constituencies  have to be single member  constituencies  or two member constituencies and wherever practicable seats may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18  

be reserved for Scheduled Caste or Tribe in a single  member constituency  but in every two member constituency one  seat has  to  be  reserved for Scheduled Caste  or  Tribe.   This provision  destroys  the effect of s. 54.  If  in  a  single member constituency a seat can be reserved which means  that only a Scheduled Caste candidate can be elected to that seat the  effect  of  reservation of seat in  the  double  member constituency  will  also  be  that  when  a  member  of  the Scheduled  Caste offers himself for election to  a  reserved seat  he can be elected only to that seat and to  no  other. This is also supported by the definition of electoral rights in  s. 79 of the 1951 Act which is defined as a right  of  a person  to  stand  or  not to stand as  a  candidate  at  an election,  i.e., an election to fill a seat in either  House of  Parliament.  The electoral right which a citizen has  is to  stand  for  election to fill a  seat  and  a  successful candidate  is  one who is elected by  securing  the  largest number of votes cast for that seat.  This necessarily  leads to the conclusion that the respondent Mr. Dippala Suri  Dora who  offered  himself for election to fill a  reserved  seat could  only be elected to that seat and not to  the  general seat.  The  next contention raised on behalf of the appellant  was that  if a member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe  wants  to contest both the seats, i.e., general and reserved he  would have to file two nomination papers and pay two deposits.  In view  of what has been said above and in view of ss. 32  and 33 and the definition of the word ’ election’ such candidate has  to file two nomination papers one for the general  seat and  the  other  for  the  reserved  seat  setting  out  the necessary qualifications which are required under the law 451 Similarly he will have to make two deposits under s.   34 for the same reason.  A question of some importance has been raised as to whether a  member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can  by  his own act transform himself into different and higher.. caste. That depends upon the view one takes of the caste system and whether  cast  is  dependent upon birth or it  varies  as  a consequence  of Guna, Karma and Subhavana that is  merit  on qualities, actions and character.  In Hinduism caste had its origin in vocation and was not dependent upon birth.   Birth as  the sole criterion of caste is a much later  development and caste became rigid and hereditary when vocations  became hereditary.   Caste  was  nothing but  division  of  labour. There  is  a  high authority to support  the  view  that  in Hinduism caste was dependent upon actions and not on  birth. In Bhagwat Gita in the fourth Discourse it is stated:               "The  four  castes  were  created  by  me   in               accordance  with their aptitude  and  actions;               know  me the author of these castes, though  I               am actionless and inexhaustible." There are Verses in the Mahabharta also which go to  support this.  One such Verse is given as follows:-               "  Truth,  Charity, fortitude,  good  conduct,               gentleness,  austerity  and  compassion-he  in               whom  these, are observed is a  Brahmana.   If               these marks exist in a Sudra and are not found               in a twice-born, the Sudra is not a Sudra  nor               the  Brahmana a Brahmana" (Teaching  given  by               Yudhisthira)               Even in Bhagwata Purana it is stated:-               " One becomes a Brahmana by his deeds and  not               by  his family or birth; even a Chandala is  a               Brahmana, if he is of pure character".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18  

In the Chandogya Upanisad there is the interesting  incident of  Satyakama who was raised to the position of  a  Brahmana because he had spoken the truth.  Thus it was his  character and not his birth which deter. mined his caste.  Amongst the Hindus  many  have  raised themselves  to  the  position  of Brahmana by their good qualities and one such instance is of Sage 452 Matanga who was a Chandala.  Vishva Mitra was a Kshtriya and became a Brahman.  Hinduism might have become static at  one stage  but its modern history shows that this is not so  now and  it would not be wrong to say that caste in Hinduism  is not  dependent upon birth but on actions.  The whole  theory of  karma  is  destructive  of the  -claim  of  caste  being dependent upon birth.  In  my  opinion Mr. Dippala Suri Dora had  by  his  actions raised  himself  to the position of Kshtriya and he  was  no longer a member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe and on  that ground also his election cannot be supported.  I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the  High-Court  and  restore that  of  the  Tribunal.   The appellant will be entitled to costs of this Court as well as of the Courts below.                            ORDER. In view of the majority judgment of the Court the appeal  is dismissed with costs in favour of Respondent No. 1.                         Appeal dismissed.