2003 (8) TMI 561 - SC - Indian Laws

Improperly accepted nomination paper leads to new election order in Assembly Constituency

Punit Rai Versus Dinesh Chaudhary

The Supreme Court found that the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly accepted as he failed to prove his Scheduled Caste status. The Court ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the nomination paper of the sole Respondent was improperly and illegally accepted.2. What relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Improper and Illegal Acceptance of Nomination PaperThe primary controversy revolved around whether the respondent, Dinesh Chaudhary, was eligible to contest from a reserved constituency as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The appellant contended that the respondent was Kurmi by caste, which falls under the Other Backward Classes (OBC), and not a Scheduled Caste. The appellant argued that the nomination paper of the respondent was wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer despite the respondent's caste certificate being under suspicion and a criminal case being registered against him for allegedly furnishing a fabricated document.The respondent claimed to belong to the Pasi community, a Scheduled Caste, by virtue of being born to Deo Kumari Devi, a Pasi, despite his father Bhagwan Singh being a Kurmi. The respondent cited government circulars stating that children from inter-caste marriages where the mother is a Scheduled Caste would be treated as Scheduled Caste.The High Court observed that the evidence provided by the appellant was circumstantial, noting that the appellant could not produce direct evidence from the respondent's family. The High Court found that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent was not a Scheduled Caste to the required standard, although it acknowledged that the respondent did not produce key witnesses, such as Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi, who were cited but not examined.The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's reliance on circumstantial evidence and emphasized that the respondent had the burden to prove his caste status due to the special knowledge of the facts. The non-production of Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi led to an adverse inference against the respondent under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The Court held that the respondent failed to provide the best evidence to support his claim of being a Pasi.The Returning Officer, despite having grave doubts about the veracity of the respondent's caste certificate and lodging an FIR, accepted the nomination paper. The Supreme Court found this conduct contrary to the behavior of a prudent and responsible officer, concluding that the nomination paper was improperly accepted.Issue 2: Relief Entitled to the PetitionerGiven the improper acceptance of the nomination paper, the Supreme Court set aside the election of the respondent to the 204 Fatua Assembly Constituency. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to hold a new election to fill the vacancy. Additionally, the Court ordered that the substance of the decision be communicated to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Bihar, with an authenticated copy sent to the Election Commission.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the respondent's election. The Court directed the Election Commission to conduct a new election for the 204 Fatua Assembly Constituency and mandated the communication of the decision to relevant authorities.