Authored By Kiran Raj

In the Election petition filed before the Karnataka High Court challenging the election of the returned candidate Sri. B. Devndrappa from the Jagaluru Vidhanasabha Constituency, by G Swamy, the Karnataka High Court, heard  by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, addressed the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide an election dispute challenging the caste status of a returned candidate. Jagaluru Legislative Assembly Constituency, is a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act of 1951).

The petitioner alleged that the respondent, elected from the reserved constituency, did not belong to the ST category but was a member of the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The petitioner sought to annul the respondent’s election on grounds of ineligibility under Section 5(a) read with Section 100(1)(a) of the Act of 1951. In defense, the respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking dismissal of the petition. The respondent argued that his caste certificate, issued by the Tahsildar, remained valid unless canceled by the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) established under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Act of 1990).

The Court determined that the election petition sufficiently alleged material facts challenging the respondent’s caste status and asserting deliberate misrepresentation. Justice Hegde observed, “Admittedly, Jagaluru Assembly Constituency is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. In case the petitioner succeeds in establishing that the respondent does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, then the respondent’s election has to be set aside.”

On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that Sections 80 and 80A of the Act of 1951 confer exclusive authority on the High Court to decide election disputes concerning the qualifications or disqualifications of candidates. The Court held, “On a conjoint reading of Sections 80, 80A, 100(1)(a), and Section 5(a) of the Act of 1951, it is explicit the election petition questioning the election of a returned candidate on the ground that the returned candidate does not possess the prescribed qualification has to be decided only by the High Court.”

The Court further held that the provisions of the Act of 1990, which govern the issuance and verification of caste certificates for appointments and admissions, do not extend to election disputes. It stated, “The Act of 1990 does not deal with election disputes at all. The jurisdiction conferred on DCVC under the Act of 1990 will not eclipse the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Act of 1951.”

Addressing legislative authority, the Court noted that Parliament has the sole power under Entry 72 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to legislate on elections to State Legislatures. Justice Hegde observed, “The State has no power to legislate contrary to matters listed in List-I to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Act of 1951 governs the election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.”

The respondent’s argument of res judicata was dismissed, with the Court noting that the prior proceedings involved different issues and parties and no conclusive finding on the respondent’s caste was made.

Concluding that the Act of 1990 does not limit the High Court’s jurisdiction under the Act of 1951, the Court rejected the respondent’s application for dismissal and permitted the election petition to proceed. The Court stated, “Thus, viewed from any angle, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Act of 1990 take away the jurisdiction of the High Court acting under the Act of 1951 to decide the dispute concerning the returned candidate’s caste.”

Case Title: G Swamy v. B Devendrappa
Case Number: Election Petition No. 19/2023
Bench Details: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde

[Read/Download order]