Holding

Since the Mondy/Mondigaru caste is not listed in the Presidential notification (as amended by the 1976 Order), it cannot be treated as the Mundala Scheduled Caste, and the appellant is ineligible to contest the reserved seat.

Summary

Sh. A. Chinnappa contested the Bethamangala Assembly seat in Karnataka, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes, claiming he belonged to the Mundala caste listed in the Presidential notification under Article 341. The Karnataka High Court held that he actually belonged to the Mondy/Mondigaru caste, which is not included in the notification, and declared his election void. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 341(1) and (2), confirming that only castes expressly listed in the President’s notification (as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order, 1976) qualify as Scheduled Castes for electoral purposes. The Court rejected the argument that Mondy/Mondigaru could be treated as synonymous with Mundala and reiterated that subsequent notifications cannot alter the original list. It also noted that courts cannot re‑declare entries in the Presidential notification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s decision upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a person belonging to the Mondy/Mondigaru caste can be considered as belonging to the Mundala Scheduled Caste for the purpose of contesting a reserved legislative assembly seat.
Whether the President’s notification under Article 341(1) can be varied by a later notification.
Whether a court has the power to declare or reinterpret entries in the Presidential notification under Article 341.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 341(1), s. Art. 341(2)

Subjects

Scheduled CasteArticle 341Reserved constituencyCaste classificationPresidential notificationElection eligibilityKarnataka Legislative Assembly

Judgment

A SH. A. CHINNAPPA
v.
SH V. VENKATAMUNI AND ORS.

MARCH 14, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Alticle 341.

C Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment Order) Act,
1976:

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Election-Reserved con-
stituency-Appellant contesting election claiming status of Mundalrr-Mun-
dala a recognised scheduled caste notified by President under Alticle
D 341(1)-Election Petition-Challenge to appellant's election-High Coult
found that appellant belongs to Mondy-Mondigaru caste which was not
recognised in Presidential Order and consequently held his election was not
valid in law-He/d conclusion of High Coult was right-Since the caste
Mondy/Mondigaru does not find place in presidential notification the status
E of appellant as Munda/a cannot be considered as equivalent to Mondy/Mon-
digaru.

Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Inclusion and exclusion of any
caste by Parliament-President has no power to vary the same by subsequent
notification.
F
Nityanand Shanna v. State of Bihar, JT (1996) 2 SC 117, relied on.

Revenue Officer & Ors. v. Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC
162, held inapplicable.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1261 of
1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.87 of the Karnataka High
Court in E.P. 21 of 1985.

H C. Mohan Rao, Madan Lokur for the Appellant.
426
I
(
A. CHINNAPPAv. V. VENKATAMUNI 427

Ranji Thomas for Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Respondents. A

" * The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appellant had contested election from 72 Bethamangala As-
sembly Constituency of Karnataka State Legislature as reserved candidate.
The appellant claimed the status of Mundala which is a recognised B
Scheduled Caste notified by the President of India in exercise of power
under Article 341 (1) of the Constitution. He contested the said election
on that basis and stood elected. When an election petition was laid by the
first respondent, the High Court found that the caste to which the appellant
belongs is Mondy/Mondigaru. The High Court on the basis of evidence on
record found that the appellant, in fact, belongs to Mondy/Mondigaru caste c
which was not recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential notifica-
tion. Therefore, the High Court declared by the impugned order dated
April 30, 1987 passed in Election Petition No. 21 of 1985 that his election
to the Assembly constituency allotted to the scheduled Caste was not valid
in law. Thus this appeal.
D
The question before us is: whether the status of the appellant who is
a Mondy/!Vlondigaru, can be considered as Mundala - a Scheduled Caste
synonym, for the purpose of election to the Legislative Assembly? Article
341 reads thus :
E
"341. Scheduled Caste. (1) The President may with respect to any
State or Union Territory, and where it is a State after consultation
with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the cas-
tes, races, or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed
to be Scheduled Cast.es in relation to that State or Union Territory, F
as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list
of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause
(1) a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe
or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as
G
aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be
~
varied by any subsequent notification".

A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the President may,
with respect to any State or Union Territory, after consultation with the H
I
\
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A Governor, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts
of or f,'TOUps within castes, races or tribes which shall, for the purposes of
this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that
State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Under clause (2) thereof,
the Parliament has been empowered by law either to include in or exclude
B from the list of Scheduled Castes specified by the President under clause
(1) of Article 341, any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any
caste, race or tribe. Once the Parliament by law includes in or excludes
from any race, castei tribe, parts of or groups within any caste, race or
tribes, the President thereafter shall have no power to vary by any sub-
sequent notification the said caste, race, tribe or part of or group within
C any caste, race or tribe. Thus it could be seen that since the caste
Mondy/Mondigaru does not admittedly find place in the notification issued
by the President or as amended by the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
(Amendment Order) Act, 1976, the status of the appellant as Mundala
cannot be considered to be synonymous of or equivalent to Mondy/Mon-
D digaru as claimed by the appellant. This Court in a recent judgment in
Nityanand Shanna v. State of Bihar, JT (1996) 2 SC 117 has considered the
scope of the power of the Court to declare the entries of the Presidential
notification under Article 342 (1) and had held that no court has power to
give such a declaration. The limited scope of enquiry is whether the caste
claimed by the candidates finds place in the notification of the President
E as amended under the Act. The High Court, therefore, was right in its
conclusion that the appellant cannot have the status of Scheduled Caste to
contest the said Legislative Assembly election. The learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon Revenue Officer & Ors. v. Prafulla Kumar Pati &
Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 162. In that case, admittedly Dhoba is one of the castes
F recognised by the President as Schedule Caste in relation to the State of
Orissa. Since the appellant therein claimed the status as a Rajaka in one
of the sale deeds, it was sought to deny him the benefits conferred on
Scheduled Castes. This Court had held that since the President has notified
Dhoba to be Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Orissa, merely
because he described himself to be a Rajaka in one of the sale deeds, his
G status as a Scheduled Caste is not taken away by such description. The
ratio therein has no application to the facts in this case.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.