Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih held that a valid caste certificate, issued by the competent authority, cannot be questioned in an election petition unless first annulled through the statutory procedure established by law. Setting aside the High Court’s decision which declared the appellant's election void, the Court ruled that the allegations regarding religious conversion and fraud were not established with adequate evidence. Directing the dismissal of the election petition, the Court concluded that unless the caste certificate is set aside under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, it retains its validity and cannot be dislodged in collateral proceedings.

The dispute originated from the election conducted in the year 2021 to the Devikulam Legislative Assembly Constituency (088) in Idukki District, Kerala, which was reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes. The appellant contested the election from this reserved constituency claiming eligibility on the basis of being a Hindu Parayan, a Scheduled Caste notified in Kerala.

Also Read: Stamp Vendors are Public Servants under PC Act | Proof of Demand is Sine Qua Non for Conviction | Mere Recovery of Tainted Money Not Enough : Supreme Court

The appellant submitted nomination papers declaring that he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste. He supported this claim with a caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Devikulam. The nomination was objected to orally by the respondent, who contested that the appellant was ineligible since he professed Christianity and was not entitled to claim Scheduled Caste status as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. However, the Returning Officer rejected these objections and accepted the appellant’s nomination.

Polling was held on 6 April 2021. The appellant secured 59,049 votes and was declared elected on 2 May 2021, winning by a margin of 7,848 votes.

The respondent, who was the defeated candidate, then filed Election Petition No. 11 of 2021 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. In this election petition, the respondent asserted that the appellant’s grandparents had migrated from Tamil Nadu and belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste in Tamil Nadu. Since they migrated after 1950, the respondent contended that the appellant was not entitled to claim Scheduled Caste status in Kerala. Furthermore, it was alleged that the appellant’s parents were baptized Christians and that the appellant himself was also baptized, thereby ceasing to profess Hinduism. The election petition further averred that the caste certificate was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.

In support of these contentions, the respondent produced documentary evidence and examined witnesses, including pastors from the Church of South India. The key allegation was that the appellant’s parents were baptized in 1982 by Pastor Ebenezer Mani and that the appellant was also baptized by the same person after his birth in 1984.

The appellant contested these allegations and argued that the burden of proof lay entirely on the election petitioner. He submitted that his grandparents had been residing permanently in Kerala since the 1940s, well before the 1950 Presidential Order came into force. He placed reliance on official documents, including plantation records, showing their residence in Kundala Estate, Munnar.

The appellant argued that caste is inherited from the father, and since his father was a Hindu Parayan, he too was entitled to be classified as such. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the baptism evidence. Notably, Ebenezer Mani, who was produced as PW8 by the respondent, admitted in his deposition that he was only 14 years old in 1982 and had become an Evangelist only at the age of 24. The appellant argued that PW8 could not have performed baptisms as claimed.

Moreover, the appellant highlighted that the names and birth dates recorded in the church registers did not match the actual particulars of his family members. He contended that there was no conclusive evidence to show that he had converted to Christianity or ceased to profess Hinduism.

The appellant relied heavily on Section 10 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. According to this provision, the burden of proof to establish Scheduled Caste status in any trial under the Act lies on the claimant. However, the appellant argued that election petitions are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and that a caste certificate issued under the Kerala Act could only be invalidated through the procedure established therein.

In addition, the appellant submitted that the validity of his caste certificate had never been set aside by the competent Scrutiny Committee or authority under the Kerala Act. He argued that unless annulled in such manner, the certificate was presumed valid and could not be disregarded in election proceedings.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the burden of proof rested on the appellant to establish his eligibility and that the material produced, including baptism registers and marriage records showing Christian ceremonies, disqualified him from claiming Scheduled Caste status.

The High Court of Kerala accepted the respondent’s contentions and declared the election void. It held that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving that he professed Hinduism and that his caste certificate could not be accepted at face value in view of the evidence of religious conversion. The High Court accordingly invalidated the appellant’s election.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the correctness of the High Court’s findings and the approach adopted in invalidating a duly issued caste certificate through election proceedings without first following the procedure mandated by the Kerala Act.

The Supreme Court examined the issues in detail, beginning with the question of whether the caste certificate issued to the appellant could be invalidated in an election petition without following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 ("Kerala Act").

The Court framed the central question as follows: “The central issue in the entire controversy is whether the Appellant belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste in the State of Kerala and is covered by the 1950 Order insofar as it relates to the State of Kerala. The twin conditions needing to be satisfied would be (i) being of the Hindu Parayan caste, and; (ii) being, himself/herself or through one’s ancestors, permanent resident of the State of Kerala as on the date of the 1950 Order.”

The Court recorded that there was no dispute about the appellant’s grandparents originally belonging to the Hindu Parayan caste. The main contention was regarding permanent residence and religious conversion. The Court stated:

“There is no dispute on the factum that, originally, the grandparents of the Appellant belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste in the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin having migrated from the State of Tamil Nadu but prior to 1950. In this regard, there is sufficient evidence available on the record.”

The Court then addressed the issue of whether the appellant had professed Christianity at the time of his election. “The next relevant question which would arise would be as to whether the Appellant had still retained the Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when he contested from the Devikulam Legislative Assembly Constituency.”

On the evidence regarding conversion, the Court found serious deficiencies. It noted inconsistencies and inadequacies in the testimony and documents produced.

“Certain registers of the CSI Church were produced before the High Court. However, from the evidence, it is also apparent that the entries in such registers were not very specific, inasmuch as the name of the Appellant was not mentioned and other details with regard to the age of his siblings also did not match.”

The Court further noted: “Were this an ordinary civil suit at trial, we could have possibly applied the ‘preponderance of probabilities’ yardstick. However, as per the dicta in J. Chandrasekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, election petitions have to be treated akin to criminal proceedings and the charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The testimony of Ebenezer Mani (PW8) was also examined closely: “Most importantly, Ebenezer Mani/PW8, who claimed to have baptized the Appellant and his family, during evidence, admitted that he was aged only 14 years in 1982 when he purportedly baptized the Appellant’s parents. This is, clearly, unbelievable and unsustainable.”

On the aspect of professing a religion, the Court elaborated: “It is relevant to observe that mere observance/performance of a ritual of/associated with any religion does not ipso facto and necessarily mean that the person ‘professes’ that religion.”

Quoting Punjabrao v D.P. Meshram, the Court further clarified: “The word ‘profess’ in the Presidential Order appears to have been used in the sense of an open declaration or practice by a person of the Hindu (or Sikh) religion. Where, therefore, a person says, on the contrary, that he has ceased to be a Hindu he cannot derive any benefit from that Order.”

Applying this principle, the Court observed: “From the evidence available, it is not possible to hold that the Appellant ‘professes’ Christianity.”

The Court also considered whether an election petition was the correct forum to invalidate a caste certificate. It referred to Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra. These decisions collectively established that a caste certificate should be scrutinized and invalidated through statutory procedures, not election proceedings.

The Bench stated: “The Kerala Act, which was enacted after Madhuri Patil, provides that the burden of proof lies on the claimant, but only in proceedings initiated under the Kerala Act. An election petition does not fall within the scope of the Kerala Act.”

It clarified: “Section 10 of the Kerala Act does not aid the Respondent’s case. The expression ‘in any trial’ must be interpreted contextually and cannot be stretched to cover election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”

Finally, the Court concluded that the High Court erred in treating the election petition as a proceeding to invalidate the caste certificate: “A duly issued caste/community certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an election petition.”

Summarising its conclusions, the Court declared: “In light of the lack of material facts and proper pleadings in the election petition, the allegations stand unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the election petition shall stand dismissed.”

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision, which had declared the appellant’s election void, was unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. Observing that the election petition did not meet the evidentiary threshold required for allegations of this nature, the Court stated, "The decision of the High Court is legally unsustainable and thus liable to be interfered with."

It was further held that the respondent’s challenge to the appellant’s caste certificate could not be entertained in election proceedings without first having the certificate set aside through the process prescribed under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. The Court remarked, "A duly issued caste/community certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an election petition."

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Commercial Court Decree | Return Barred Unless Order Exceeds Capacity Under Clause 9 (5) (g) | Clause 13 (9) Allows Risk Based Substitution

Given these findings, the Court directed that the election petition filed before the High Court must be dismissed. It declared in clear terms, "Accordingly, the election petition shall stand dismissed."

Finally, the Court concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would make no order regarding costs. It recorded, "In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

Through these directions, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s verdict, dismissed the election petition and thereby reinstated the appellant’s election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the Devikulam Constituency.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: V. Giri, Senior Advocate, G. Prakash, AOR

For the Respondent: Narender Hooda, Senior Advocate, Aljo K Joseph, AOR

Case Title: A. Raja v. D. Kumar
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 629
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2023
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih

[Read/Download order]