Bhaiya Ram Munda Vs. Anirudh Patar
& Ors  INSC 162 (14 August 1970)
14/08/1970 SHAH, J.C.
CITATION: 1971 AIR 2533 1971 SCR (1) 804
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)order, 1950,
Part III--When evidence admissible for finding the scope of an entry in
Order--Some sub-tribes under an entry included--Whether other sub-tribes deemed
excluded--Effect of admission by member of Scheduled Tribe that he was not a
member of the tribe.
In Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled
1950, issued by the President of India under
Art. 342, Munda is specified as a scheduled tribe, but not Patar. The first
respondent was a Patar. He was declared elected to the Bihar Legislative
Assembly from a scheduled tribes constituency. The appellant, who was an
unsuccessful candidate, filed an election petition for setting aside the
election on the ground that the first respondent was not a member of a
scheduled tribe. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the first
respondent was a Munda and was hence a member of a scheduled tribe.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD: (1) Evidence is admissible for the
purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to
mean, but not so as to modify the order by including other tribes. Since the
first respondent's case was not that Patars are a distinct community who are
regarded as Mundas but that Patars are Mundas, evidence may be given to show
that the entry Munda includes Patars. [814 B-C; 815 A] B. Basavalingappa v.
Munichinnappa,  1 S.C.R.
316, Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh & Ors.
 2 S.C.R. 877, Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa Jamappanna
C.A.No. 1622/67 dt. 21-5-1968, referred to.
(2) Whether a particular person is a member
of a scheduled tribe so declared by the President is essentially a question of
law. 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. [808 B-C] (3) If a member of a scheduled tribe,
transfers property by a deed in which he describes himself to be not a member
of the scheduled tribe in order to avoid refusal of registration under s. 46 of
the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, he will not, on that account, be disentitled to
claim the status of a member of scheduled tribe. It could not be said, on that
ground alone, that the transferor was not a member of a scheduled tribe or was
estopped from setting up that status. [808 D-E] (4) The evidence in the case
established that Patars are a sub-tribe of Mundas and that they are not
different from Mundas. [813 F-G] (5) If Patars are Mundas, because some
sub-tribes of Mundas arc 805 enumerated in the Presidential Order and others
are not, no inference will arise that those not enumerated are not Mundas.
Merely because Patars are not specifically mentioned in the Presidential order,
they cannot be on that account alone be excluded from the general heading of
[813 G-H] & CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No.2039 of 1969.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 19, 1969 of
the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.9 of 1969.
D. Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant.
K. K. Sinha, S. Thakur Prasad and S. S.
Jauhar, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. At the "mid-term elections" held in January 1969 Anirudh
Patar (the 1st respondent in this appeal) was declared elected to the Bihar
Legislative Assembly from the Tamar Assembly Constituency No. 296 (Scheduled
Bhaiya Ram Munda-an unsuccessful candidate at
the electionapplied to the High Court of Patna for an order setting aside the
election on the plea that the 1st respondent was not a member of a scheduled
tribe and was on that account not qualified under s. 5 of the Representation of
the People Act. 1951 to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of
Bihar from a reserved constituency for scheduled tribes. The High Court
dismissed the petition holding that the 1st respondent was a member of a
Scheduled Tribe called "Munda" specified in Part III of the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,1950 issued in exercise of the powers
under Art. 342 of the Constitution. Bhaiya Ram Munda has appealed to this Court
under s. II 6A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Section 5 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 provides:
"A person shall not be qualified to be
chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State--unless-(a) in the
case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes of
that State, he is a member of any, of those castes or of these tribes, as, the
case may be, and is an 806 elector for any Assembly constituency in that State;
Article 342 of the Constitution, insofar as
it is relevant, provides "(1) The President may with respect to any State
or Union territory,..... by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal
communities Or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which
shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in
relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may be law include in or
exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued
under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any
tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under
the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification." In
exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 342, the President issued an Order
called the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 which by the second
clause provided :
The tribes or tribal communities, or parts
or groups within, tribes or tribal
communities-specified in Parts I to XII of the Scheduled to this Order shall,
in relation to the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed
to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards members thereof resident in the
localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of that
Schedule.,, In the Schedule the names of certain tribes are set out, and in
Part III under the heading the State of Bihar, are designated certain tribes.
The tribes designated in Part III are deemed to be Scheduled Tribes throughout
the State of Bihar. Mundas does but Patar does not occur in Part M. The 1st
respondent contended that Patars are Mundas, and that it is only non-Mundas who
call the various exogenous groups belonging to the tribes residing generally in
Singbhum and the adjacent area and belonging to various kilis as Mundas, or
Pator Mundas, Mahal; Mundas, Tamarks, Bunduars and Marang Mundas and others. He
contended that he does not cease to be a Munda merely because his family name is
The appellant raised two arguments in support
of his petition-(1) that Patars are not Mundas and (2) that even if 807 patars
are Mundas, since the name of Patar has not be included in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Part III applicable to Bihar, he cannot be
chosen to sit in the Assembly from the reserved constituency by merely calling
himself a Munda.
Considerable evidence oral and documentary
was tendered before the High Court. In support of his' case the appellant.
relied upon-(1) a sale deed executed by the 1st respondent on January 11, 1969
which recited that the 1st respondent did not claim the status of a member of a
Scheduled Tribe; (2) entries in the revenue records and (3) oral evidence of
witnesses who deposed that the 1st respondent was not a Munda.
In support of his case the 1st respondent
relied upon-(1) a judgment of the High Court of Patna declaring that Patars are
Mundas; (2) Khatian entries in which Patars were entered as Mundas (3) a
certificate dated July 15, 1941 given by Rai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy (many
years before the date on which the dispute arose certifying that one Kshetra
Mohan Patar son of Gobardhan Patar of village Kumar Hapa, than& Tamar,
District Ranchi belonged to the Patar (Munda) tribe;
and (4) oral testimony of the witnesses who
deposed that the, 1st respondent was a Munda.
The name of the first respondent was entered
in the voters' list as a member of a Scheduled Tribe. The first respondent
stood as a candidate for election to the Bihar State Legislative Assembly in
1962, and was elected from the Scheduled Tribe constituency. Nomination was
filed by him at that election as a Patar. In 1967 took the first respondent
stood from the Tamar Scheduled Tribe Constituency for election to the Bihar
Legislative Assembly but he was defeated. It also appears from the record that
Mr. Jaipal Singh who was also a Patar was elected as a member of the Parliament
to a reserved seat from a constituency in the Bihar State, was a member of the
The first question to be determined is
whether Patars are not Mundas : The appellant placed strong reliance upon a
sale deed executed by the first respondent can January 11, 1969 (few days
before the elections) conveying property and declaring therein that the first
respondent was not a member of any Scheduled Caste or backward community. Under
s. 46 of, the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act VT of 1908 without the sanction of the
Deputy Commissioner the members of the Scheduled Tribes cannot transfer their
lands. It is common ground that to the area of the Tamar Constituency that Act
applied. A deed evidencing sale of land presented for registration by a member
of a scheduled Tribe 808 could not be registered unless the sale was sanctioned
by the Deputy Commissioner. According to the first respondent it was the vender
who inserted into the deed the statement in order to avoid refusal of
)registration by the authorities. Assuming that the statement was incorporated
in the deed with the consent of the first respondent no estoppel arises against
him. Whether a particular person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe so declared
by the President under Art. 342 of the Constitution is essentially a question
of law. 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.
Khatian entries Exts. 1/a and 1/b show that
sale deeds executed by Patars were admitted to registration and mutation
entries were posted pursuant thereto. There is no evidence whether in respect
of those sale beads permission of the Deputy Commissioner was taken before they
were executed. It is not possible to infer from the revenue entries that
sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was not obtained or that Patars are not
Mundas. Granting that the prohibition contained in S. 46 of the Chhota Nagpur
Tenancy Act was violated by a member of a Scheduled Tribe, he will not on that
account be disentitled to claim the status of a member of a schedule tribe. The
transactions of sale may be void, but it cannot be said, relying. on that
ground alone, that the transferor was not member of a Scheduled Tribe or was
estopped from setting up that status. Exts. 1(g) and 1(h) are sale deeds
executed by Mundas and sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was obtained before
execution of the sale deeds. Exhibits 4 and 4 (a) are certified copies of two
raiyat, Khatians in which the caste of the tenants who were Patars is mentioned
as Patar, but from that also no inference arises that they are a tribe distinct
The oral evidence led on behalf of the
appellant is unconvincing. Faud Singh Munda P.W. I asserted that Patras are not
a branch of the Munda Tribe, but they are a separate caste. According to him
Patars could convey. their property without the permission of the Deputy
Commissioner, that Pahans perform ceremonies in the families of Mundas, but
Brahmins assisted by barbers perform religious ceremonies in the families of
Patars, that Mundas do not offer Find in Shradh, Patars do offer; that the Sun
is the supreme deity for the Mundas but Patars worship Rama and Krishna; and
that Mundas celebrate Sarbul festival, but Patars do not.
In cross-examination he stated that he has
never attended any Patar marriage ceremony or Shradh and that he had not seen
any Patar. offering any Find but had only heard about it, The witness was
unable to say how Patars 809 performed the puja. It appeared that he had not
much information even about Munda customs and ceremonies.
The statement of Gandharb Singh Munda P.W. 2
in examinationin-chief was similar to the testimony of P.W. 1 In crossexamination
the witness stated that Mundas were (not Gonds but they were "a separate
caste" and that he had never attended a Patar marriage ceremony and was
never invited by any Patar on the occasion of Shradh. He admitted " that
non-Mundas also celebrated Sarbul. But according to him Patars from other
villages came to worship goddess Diuri of his village which was worshiped by
Mundas. He did not appear to be competent to speak about the customs and usages
of Patars as distinguished from those of Mundas. The witness did not know that
those who are generally called Mundas are in reality Komput Mundas.
Sudhir Kumar Choudhury P.W. 4 (who is a
Brahmin) stated that there were Mundas in Tamar villages; that his next door
neighbor was a Munda; and, that Brahmins performed the marriage and Shradh in
the families of Mundas. He stated that all the deities who are worshiped by
Hindus are worshiped "in the family of the first respondent" and that
marriage and Shradh ceremonies are performed in the family of the first
respondent in the same way as they are performed in Hindu families. The witness
admitted that he had not personally seen the performance of Puja of Rama and
Krishna in the house of the first respondent. The High Court observed that the
answers given by the witness in his cross-examination indicated that he had no
familiarity with the customs of Mundas.
Abhimanyu Singh Munda P.W. 5 stated that the
first respondent was a Patar by caste and the customs of marriage and Shradh
amongst the Mundas and Patars were different. In cross-examination he said that
in the area within the Tamar Police Station Mundas speak Mundari whereas Patars
speak Panch Pargania. This, was however, plainly contrary to what the other
witnesses had stated. He said that there was only one family of Patars in his
village; that he was invited by that family on the occasions of marriage and
Shradh, and that he did not know the Gotra of that family. He further stated
that all the scheduled tribes of Chhota Nagpur drink Hanria but the witness
denied that the Patars drink Hanria.
In the view of the High Court, reliance could
not be placed upon the testimony of this witness. We see no reason to disagree
P.W. 6 is the appellant himself. He repeated
what was stated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. He asserted that Patars do not
belong to a Scheduled Tribe, He admitted however that 810 he had never attended
any ceremony of marriage or Shradh or any other function in a Patar family and
that he could not, competently speak about the ceremonial customs of Patars.
He also denied that the son of P.W. I was an
employee of the Seva Mandal, a fact which was admitted by P.W. 1.
The first respondent has relied in support of
his case upon Exts. A,, B, B/1 & C. Exhibit A is the certificate issued by
Rai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy certifying one Kshetra Mohan Patar as belonging
to the Patar (Munda) tribe.
Exhibits B and B/ 1 are entries in the
Khatian and Ext. C is the judgment delivered by Ahmad, J., of the Patna High
Court in a case relating to the acceptance of Patars as Mundas.
Kshetra Mohan Patar R.W. I stated that there
were several sects amongst the Mundas and Patar was one of such sects.
The witness further stated that Pahans
Officiate as priests at the time of marriage in the families of all the subcastes
of Mundas and Brahmins do not officiate as priests on such occasions; that
Patars also bury the bones of such dead bodies which are burnt at a place
called Susan or Hargaddi and that they also worship the Sun and other deities
worshiped by Mundas. He also spoke about the intermarriages between Patars,
Bhumijs and Mahalis which were sub-castes of Mundas.
Daroo Pahan R.W. 2 is not a Patar but a
Munda. He stated that Khangars and Patars are sub-castes of Mundas, that some
boys of Mundas of his village had married Patar girls, that those boys with
their Patar wives were living in his village. He also said that Puja was
performed by his brother, when Barats of Mundas returned to the village with
Patar wives. He gave details about the names of some of the Patar girls married
to Munda boys in his village.
Jamir Munda R.W. 3 said that he had married a
and that there were two main branches' of
Mundas-one consisting of Patars, Khangars and Mahalis and the other consisting
of Babuans. Mundas and Kol Mundas, and except Babuans others inter-married
among themselves. He stated in cross-examination that Patar is merely a title
and not a sub-caste.
Khudi Ram Munda R.W. 4 stated that there were
two main branches of Mundas-one consisting of Mundas, Patars, Khangars and
Mahalis. and the other consisting of Mankis, Thakurs Bahuans and Mundaris; that
Pahans officiated as priests on the occasion of marriages in the family of
Patars and Patars also Derfomed Sarna Pula and celebrated Sarbul festival; that
his nephew had married the daughter of a Patar and-that his 811 present wife
was also a Patar. In cross-examination he admitted that those Patars who were rich
called Brahmins to perform Puja etc. on ceremonial occasions.
Ram Jatan Patar R.W. 5 stated that in the
Khatian the caste of his father was entered as Patar Munda. He further stated
that the daughter of his nephew Satya Narain was married with the nephew of
Khudi Ram Munda.
Raghunath Munda R.W. 6 stated that there were
two branches of Mundas-Mundas and Patar Mundas. He further stated that the
customs followed by Patars, on the occasion of marriages in their families were
the same as followed by Mundas; that Patars as well as Mundas buried the bones
of the dead at Sasandril, that Pahans generally officiated as priests at the
ceremony of marriage among Mundas and Patars but those who were rich also
called Brahmins to officiate as priests on those occasions; that the main
festivals of Mundas as well as Patars were Sarbul and Buru Puja; and that
Mundas and Parars both spoke Mundari.
Bahadur Patar R.W. 7 gave similar testimony.
Harihar Singh Munda R.W. 9 supported the
testimony of witnesses R.Ws. 3 & 4. He spoke about the various sects of the
Mundas and also about the prevalence of some customs relating to marriages and
other ceremonies of Patars and Mundas.
Kumar Amarendra Nath Sah Deo R.W. 10 stated
that in the marriages in the families of Mundas and Patars generally Pahans
officiated as priests; that those who were rich also invited Brahmin's on the
occasion and there were intermarriages between Patars and other branches of the
He also spoke about the custom of burying the
bones of the deceased members in the families of Patars.
The first respondent R.W. II stated that his
name was entered in the voters' list prepared in 1960, that he was elected to
the Bihar State Legislative Assembly in the elections held in 1962 and that he
lost in the elections of 1967. He also corroborated the statements of his
witnesses relating to the customs of Mundas and' has asserted that Patars are
Dr. Sachchidananda R.W. 8 is a renewed
anthropologist. He has made a study of tribal culture in Bihar and has written
several books on anthropology. In his book "Profiles of Tribal Culture in
Bihar" and in his articles on Mundas in Bihar he has stated that Patars
are Mundas. He confirmed that opinion on the basis of anthropological studies,
812 Dr, Sarat Chandra Roy in his publication "Mundas and this
Country" at p. 400 has observed:
"The Munda tribe is divided into a large
number of exogamous groups called kilis.
According to Munda tradition, all the members
of the same kili are descended from one common ancestor. But such a tradition
may not be quite correct with regard to the original kilis. Though exogamous as
regards the kilis, the Mundas are endogamous so far as other tribes are
concerned. Thus, there can now be no valid marriages, according to Munda
custom, between a Munda and the member of any other Kolarian' tribe, such as
the Santals, Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy has then referred to the various sub-tribes
known as Bhumij-Mundas, Khangars and observed "In Parganas Bundu and
Tamar, these Khangar Mundas are known as Patar Mundas, in parts of Kunti Thana
as Mahli Mundas, in Singbhum as Tamarias, in Gangpur as Bunduars and in Pargana
Balkaddi by the significant name of Marang Mundas." In his "Profiles
of Tribal Culture in Bihar" Dr. Sachchidananda has said at p. 40 :
"The entire Munda tribe consists of an
elder and younger branch, the Mahali Mundako and the Kompat Mundako
respectively. The former are found mainly in Tamar Pargana of the Ranchi
District and are also known as Patar.
Ordinarily Munda or those belonging to the
younger branch form the bulk of the Munda population. Both these branches are
endogamous. The former are considered socially inferior to the latter."
The author then stated at p. 41 "In Tamar area the social stratification
among the Munda has reached a developed form. Six distinct classes or castes
may be distinguished. These may be grouped into two viz. (a) the Zamindars or
landlords and (b) the tenants. In group A we have at the top, landlords called
Thakur who hold above fifteen villages each. Next come Manki who are lesser
landlords holding upto ten or eleven villages each. In group B are the Mundari
who are Munda tenants. Intermarriage between Mundari and the above mentioned
four classes is well nigh impossible due to great disparity in economic and
social status. At the bottom 813 of the Munda society in Tamar are the Patar
who belong to the Mahali-Mundako branch of the tribe. Though they hold small
bits of land there is no social intercourse between them and the upper five
groups. Not only is intermarriage unthinkable but even water cannot be taken
from the hands of a Patar." Patars are it appears regarded as the lowest
in the social order amongst the Mundas but they are still Mundas.
In Encyclopedia Mundarica by Rev. John
Hoffman in collaboration with Rev. Arthur Van Emelen, VoL IX, at p.
2881 it is stated that "Munda is a name
which has been given to the Mundas by the Hindus" and is exclusively used
by all but the Mundas themselves. Under the heading Munda are given the names
of different-sub-tribes of the Mundas one of which is Mahdli. At p. 2756in the
same book after the head "Mahali" it is said that a Mahali is a Munda
of the elder branch. The author then proceeded to say that the Mahalis are also
called Tamadias especially by Hindus and in ChotaNagpur they are called
Khangars. In Tamar they are called Pators. The Mundari they speak is
characterized by a great number of vocal checks. They have practically all the
clans (kilis) found amongst the Mundas.
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 from a scheduled tribe
constituency. He again contested the elections from that constituency in 1967
but he was defeated. It is only in 4969 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.
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 Art. 342 of the
Constitution the name "Munda" is mentioned and similarly the names of
other subtribes amongst Mundas are mentioned. Counsel for the appellant
contended that if according to Dr. Sachchidanand Mahalis, Ho, Bhumijs, Asur,
Baiga, and Khangars 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 814 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 Mudas. We are unable to
hold that because Patars are not specifically mentioned in the List they cannot
be included in the general heading Munda.
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
In B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa (1)
the relevant facts were that M who was elected from a Scheduled Castes
constituency claimed to belong to the Bhovi caste which was one of the
Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
issued by the President under Art. 341 of the Constitution. In an election
petition itwas claimed that M belonged to the Voddar caste which was not
mentioned in the Order and that on that account M was not entitled to stand for
election from Scheduled Caste constituency. Evidence was led before the
Election Tribunal that Bhovi was a sub-caste of the Voddar caste and as M did
not belong to the Bhovi sub-caste he could not stand for election from the
constituency. The High Court in appeal held that although Voddar, caste was not
included in the Order, yet considering the facts and circumstances in existence
at the time when the Order was passed in 1950, the Bhovi caste mentioned in the
order was the same as the Voddar caste. In appeal to this Court it was
contended that the High Court was wrong in considering the evidence and then
coming to the conclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned in the Order was meant
for the caste Voddar and that the Tribunal' should have declined to allow
evidence to be produced which would have the effect of modifying the Order
issued by the President. This Court held that the evidence clearly showed that
in 1950 when the Order was passed there was no caste in the then Mysore State
which was known as Bhovi and the Order could not have intended to recognise a
caste which did not exist. 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  1 S. C. R. 316.
315 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.
The next case in the order of sequence is
Bhaiyalal v.Harikishan Singh and Others.(1) In that case an election to a State
Legislature was challenged an the ground that the successful candidate belonged
to the Dohar caste which was not recognised as 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 hold by this Court
that the plea that the appellant is not a Chamar, and as such, he couldnot
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 Art. 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 Dehars were not a
Scheduled )Caste. The Court observed,that in specifying castes, races or tribes
under Art. 341 of the Constitution, the President had been expressly authorised
to Emit 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 races, 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.
In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani
Chaniappa jamappanna & Ors.(2) 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 Bedars a tribe not specified in Part VIII para 2 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, (1)  2 S.C.R. 877.
(2)  2 S.C.R. 805.
816 1950. The successful candidate asserted
that he was a Nayaka and the Nayakas were also called Bedars. The High Court
held that there was no Nayaka in the area and successful candidate was a Bedar.
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 widespread" 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 Bedar did
not suffice to displace the acceptance of the nomination paper or the claim of
the appellant that he was a Nayaka.
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 Patar.
Attention may also be directed to a recent
judgment of this Court in, Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (1) In that case
Dina Narnavare 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 Gadchiroli of District Chanda in
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 among the Gonds. It was found that the customs,
manners, forms (A 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 is included in the Order is a general name applicable to
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
(2) C. A. No. 1622 of 1957 decided on May,