Case: Bhaiya Ram Munda Vs. Anirudh Patar &amp; Ors

It was therefore necessary to find out which caste was meant by the use of the name Bhovi and for that purpose evidence was rightly recorded by the Tribunal and acted upon by the High Court. This Court accordingly confirmed the view of the High Court. The decision in this case lends no support to the contention that evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean.33. The next case in the order of sequence is Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh and Others. ((1965) 2 SCR 877 : AIR 1965 SC 1557 : (1966) 2 SCJ 77) In that case an election to a State Legislature was challenged on the ground that the successful candidate belonged to the Dohar caste which was not recognized as a Scheduled Caste for the district in question, and on that ground the successful candidate was not competent to stand for election. The Election Tribunal declared the election invalid and the finding was confirmed on appeal by the High Court. It was held by this Court that the plea that the appellant is not a Chamar, and as such, he could not claim the status of a Chamar claiming that he belonged to Dohar Caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar Caste, and that an enquiry of the kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Article 341 of the Constitution. It was urged in that case that Chamars were recognised as a Scheduled Caste but not the Dohar. The successful candidate was, it was found, a Dohar and was not a Chamar. The Court declined to allow a plea to be raised that Dohars were in some areas recognised as a sub-caste of Chamars. The contention was plainly futile, once it was held that the candidate was not a Chamar in the constituency to which the Order related and Dohars were not a Scheduled caste. The Court observed that in specifying castes, races or tribes under Article 341 of the Constitution, the President had been expressly authorised to limit the notification to parts of or groups within the caste, race or tribe, and the President may well come to the conclusion that not the whole caste, race, or tribe, but parts of or groups within them should be specified. Similarly the President can specify castes, races or tribes or parts thereof in relation not only to the entire State, but in relation to the parts of the State where he is satisfied that the examination of the social and educational backwardness of the race, caste or tribe justifies such specification. On that view the Court upheld the decision of the High Court that the successful candidate who was a Dohar was not, in the constituency from which the case arose a Chamar within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.34. In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa Famappanna & Others ((1968) 2 SCR 805 : AIR 1968 SC 929 : 2 SCJ 560) an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribes filed an election petition alleging that the other three candidates were Badars, a tribe not specified in Part VIII, Para 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The successful candidate asserted that he was a Nayaka and the Nayakas were also called Badars. The High Court held that there was no Nayaka in the area and successful candidate was a Badar. This Court allowed the appeal and held that Nayakas were to be found not only in the districts of Mysore but also in Maharashtra and Rajasthan. "This tribal community was therefore wide-spread" and it was not possible to say that there was no Nayaka in the district to which the appellant belonged. A bare assertion by the election petitioner that the appellant was a Badar did not suffice to displace the acceptance of the nomination paper or the claim of the appellant that he was a Nayaka.35. In the present case it is not the contention of the first respondent that he was a Patar-member of a tribe which is not Munda, but he was recognized as a Munda. His case was that in his tribe he was as a Munda Patars.36. Attention may also be directed to a recent judgment of this Court in Dina v. Narayan Singh & Another. (C.A, No. 1628 of 1967, decided on May 21, 1968) In that case Dina Narayan Singh was declared elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Armori Scheduled Tribes constituency. His election was set aside on the application filed by the first respondent on the ground that Dina was not eligible to stand as a candidate from a reserved constituency. Dina had declared in his nomination paper that he was a member of the Gond (Mana) caste and the same was a Scheduled Tribe in Taluka Cadchiroli of District Chanda in that the Maharashtra State and being a Gond though styled as Mana he was entitled to the privileges given by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. This Court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no sub-tribe of Maratha Manas in the Gonds. It was found that the customs, manners, forms of worship and dress of the members of the Maratha Mana community were all different from the customs, manners, form of worship and dress of the Gonds. In that view the Court held that Mana community amongst the Marathas could not be regarded as Gond and the appellant was not entitled to stand for election as Gond. The decision clearly decides that the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is not decisive. Even if the tribe of a person is different from the name included in the Order issued by the President, it may be shown that the name included in the Order is a general name applicable to sub-tribes.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Though an admission made by him expressly or by implication that he is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe is evidence against him in an election petition, the evidence is not conclusive.The evidence given on behalf of the first respondent is amply supported by studies made by distinguished anthropologists. The first respondent was without any objection recorded in the voters list as a member of the Scheduled Tribe. He was elected in 1962 elections from a Scheduled Tribe constituency. He again contested the election from that constituency in 1967 but he was defeated. It is only in 1969 when at the fresh elections that he contested the seat and was declared elected when an objection was raised that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. On a consideration of all the evidence we are of the view that Patars are a sub-tribe of Mundas and that they are not different from Mundas.30. The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the appellant has also no substance. It is true that in Part III of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued under Article 342 of the Constitution the name "Munda" is mentioned and similarly the names of other sub-tribes amongst Mundas are mentioned. for the appellant contended that if according to Dr. Sachchidanand Mahalis, Ho, Bhumijs, Assur, Baaig and Khangara are Mundas, specific mention of some of those tribes in the Schedule Tribes Order clearly indicated that Patars who are not mentioned therein are not a scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the Order. There is, however, no warrant for that view. If Patars are Mundas, because some sub-tribes of Mundas are enumerated in the Order and others are not, no inference will arise that those not enumerated are not Mundas. We are unable to hold that because Patars are not specifically mentioned in the List they cannot be included in the general heading Munda.31. Decisions in support of the contention that the Courts cannot allow evidence to be taken for proving that certain classes of people though not expressly designated in the Presidential Order were intended to be covered by the Order may be briefly referred to. It may suffice to state, however, that it is not the case of the first respondent that Patars are a distinct community, but that they should be regarded as Mundas because of the similarity of customs, religious beliefs, forms of worship and other social obligations.In the present case it is not the contention of the first respondent that he was a Patar-member of a tribe which is not Munda, but he was recognized as a Munda. His case was that in his tribe he was as a Munda Patars.36. Attention may also be directed to a recent judgment of this Court in Dina v. Narayan Singh & Another. (C.A, No. 1628 of 1967, decided on May 21, 1968) In that case Dina Narayan Singh was declared elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Armori Scheduled Tribes constituency. His election was set aside on the application filed by the first respondent on the ground that Dina was not eligible to stand as a candidate from a reserved constituency. Dina had declared in his nomination paper that he was a member of the Gond (Mana) caste and the same was a Scheduled Tribe in Taluka Cadchiroli of District Chanda in that the Maharashtra State and being a Gond though styled as Mana he was entitled to the privileges given by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. This Court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no sub-tribe of Maratha Manas in the Gonds. It was found that the customs, manners, forms of worship and dress of the members of the Maratha Mana community were all different from the customs, manners, form of worship and dress of the Gonds. In that view the Court held that Mana community amongst the Marathas could not be regarded as Gond and the appellant was not entitled to stand for election as Gond. The decision clearly decides that the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is not decisive. Even if the tribe of a person is different from the name included in the Order issued by the President, it may be shown that the name included in the Order is a general name applicable to sub-tribes.