Case: Punjab Rao Vs. D. P. Meshram &amp; Others

2. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 were candidates duly nominated for election to the Assembly from the aforesaid constituency. The poll was taken on February 27, 1962 and respondent No. 1 who had polled the highest number of votes was declared elected. The appellant thereupon preferred an election petition before the Election Commission; the main allegations in which were (a) that respondent No. 1 having embarced Buddhism on March 17, 1957 had ceased to be a member of a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and was thus disentitled from being a candidate for the particular seat and (b) that respondent No. 1 was guilty of several corrupt practices. The Tribunal held that the corrupt practices alleged against respondent No. 1 were not established it, however, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had embraced Buddhism as alleged by the appellant and was, therefore, not eligible for being a candidate for election from the reserved constituency. Upon this ground the Tribunal set aside the election of respondent No. 1. It may be mentioned that the appellant had made a further prayer to the effect that he should be declared elected to the seat; but this prayer was not granted by the Tribunal on the ground that he was not the only other candidate for election and, therefore, it cannot be said how the votes which respondent No. 1 had secured would have been distributed among the remaining candidates. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay. The only question which was urged before the High Court was regarding the alleged conversion of respondent No. 1 to Buddhism. On that question the High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal and held that the fact had not been established by evidence. The High Court, therefore, upheld the election of respondent No. 1.3. In support of his contention that respondent. No. 1 was converted to Buddhism on March 17, 1957 the appellant had adduced evidence of P.W. 9 Ramratan Janorkar, P.W. 2 Akant Mate, P.W. 5 Devaji Bhagat and P.W. 10 Wasudeo Dongre. Ramratan who claims to be a Buddha has said that he presided, over a meeting held at Lashkari bagh, Nagpur, two or three days after the Holi festival of the year 1957 at which a mass conversion of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes to Buddhism took place. He named ten persons who, according to him had been converted at that meeting, one of them being respondent No. 1. Amongst others named by him were P.W. 2 Akant Mate, P. W. 5 Devaji Bhagat and P.W. 10 Wasudeo Dongre. These three persons have corroborated the evidence of Ramratan. We have been taken through the evidence of these witnesses and though there may be some contradictions of minor points on the whole their evidence is consistent and has a ring of truth in it. Moreover, the Tribunal which heard and saw the witnesses depose has believed in their veracity. The High Court has, however, not chosen to accept their evidence mainly on the ground that these witnesses belong to a party which is opposed to respondent No. 1 and his party. It is not disputed before us that these witnesses as well as respondent No. 1 were members of the Republican Party of India founded by the late Dr. Ambedkar and that some time after his death them was rift in the party as a result of which two groups were farmed. The leader of one of these groups is Haridas Awade and that of the other is Khobragade: Respondent No. 1 belongs to the group headed by Khobargade while the appellant and the witnesses belong to the other group.

Reasoning:
This part of the evidence of this witness has not been challenged in cross-examination. There is no reason why this evidence ought not to be accepted, particularly when some of the essential facts deposed to by the witnesses have been admitted by respondent No. 1 himself. If we accept this evidence then the only conclusion which can emerge is that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a Hindu. For, however great the admiration or regard a Hindu may have for Lord Buddha, he would shudder at the idea of desecrating a Shiva Linga in this manner or even of converting what was once a Shiva temple into a Buddhist temple. In our opinion, this would be the strongest circumstances corroborating the evidence of eye-witnesses regarding the conversion of respondent No. 1 tois true that. R.W. 5 Waman Godbole speaks of some register but his evidence clearly shows that the register is not regularly maintained nor are the signatures of persons who had been converted taken according to the dates of conversion. There is nothing to show that it was obligatory on every person who had been converted to sign in the register. Moreover, a signature in such a register would at best be only a piece of evidence of the fact of conversion and nothing more. Absence of a persons signature in the register would not necessarily negative his being at all converted a Buddhism. Then it is said that only a Bhikku is entitled to convert non-Buddhists to Buddhism. There is abundant evidence on record that at the conversion ceremony held on October 14, 1956 Dr. Ambedkar had told the new Buddhists that any one who had become a Buddhist could admit others to the fold of Buddhism. Apart from that we have been shown no authority to the effect that a person cannot become a Buddhist unless he is converted to Buddhism by aBhikku. Buddism was in essence also a protest against orthodoxy and the power of the priesthood. It would, therefore, be strange to say that for a non Buddhist to become a Buddhist strict compliance with rituals is necessary. It is in evidence that at every conversion three vows had been repeated thrice. Five precepts had also to be repeated by those who offered themselves for conversion. This was exactly what was done by Dr. Ambedkar, his wife and others at the mass meeting on October 14, 1956 and it is not suggested that what they did was inadequate and so they cannot be deemed to have embraced Buddhism from that date. It is, therefore, futile to say that others who went through the same procedure had not become Buddhists merely because no Bhikku had officiated at the function.What cl. (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 contemplates is that for a person to be treated as one belonging to a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of that order he must be one who professes either Hindu or Sikh religion. The High Court following its earlier decision in Narayan Waktu v. Panjabrao, AIR 1958 Bom 296  has said that the meaning of the phrase "professes a religion" in the aforementioned provision is " to enter publicly into a religious state" and that for this purpose a mere declaration by a person that he has ceased to belong to a particular religion and embraced another religion would not be sufficient. The meanings of the word "profess" have been given thus in Websters New World dictionary : "to avow publicly to make an open declaration of .... to declare ones belief in: as to profess Christ. To accept into a religious order." The meanings given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary are more or less the same. It seems to us that the meaning" to declare ones belief in: as to profess Christ" is one which we have to bear in mind while construing the aforesaid order because it is this which bears upon religious belief and consequently also upon a change in religious belief. It would thus follow that a declaration of ones belief must necessarily mean a declaration in such a way that it would be known to those whom it may interest. Therefore, if a public declaration is made by a person that he has ceased to belong to his old religion and has accepted another religion he will be taken as professing the other religion. In the face of such an open declaration it would be idle to enquire further as to whether the conversion to another religion was efficacious. 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 the Sikh) religion. Where, therefore, a person say , on the contrary that he has ceased to be a Hindu he cannot derive any benefit from thatit was intended that the word "Hindu" used in this paragraph should have a wide meaning similar to that in Explanation II just quoted there would have been no need to make a mention of the Sikh religion. From the fact that a special mention is made of the Sikh religion it would follow that the word "Hindu" is used in the narrower sense of the orthodox Hindu religion which recognises castes and contains injuctions based on caste distinctions.For the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a Hindu at the date of his nomination and that consequently he was ineligible to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for members of Scheduled Castes. In the circumstances the Tribunal was right in setting aside his election.