Case: Shri V. V. Giri Vs. Dippala Suri Dora And Others

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 1s election.Broadly stated the main part of the appellants 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 1 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 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 1 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.3. 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 the scheduled tribe must make up his mind and decide which seat he wishes to contest. If he wants to contest the general seat he may do so and in that event he should not make the prescribed declaration 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.4. Respondent 1, however, disputes 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 in 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 constituency 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.5. 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 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 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 a member of the scheduled tribe would not prejudicially affect his right to claim election for the general seat. Incidentally respondent 1 claimed that the declaration of his election to the general seat is 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 1 was unreasonable and if not the said provision was ultra vires.6. 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 appellants 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 appellants election petition dismissed with costs throughout. The appellants 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.

Reasoning:
11.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 is 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 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.There is no doubt that in the case of double-member 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 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 isour opinion this contention is not well-founded.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 position 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.22. 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 appellants contention that respondent I could not have been validly elected for the general seat from the constituency ofwould be enough to state that whatever may have been the origin of Hindu castes and tribes in ancient times, gradually status came to be based on birth alone. It is well known 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 andHigh 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 1 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 cannoteven 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 relevanthas 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 schedule 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.