BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 does not take away its jurisdiction to decide an election dispute questioning the caste of a returned candidate (a candidate who has been declared elected) to the legislative assembly.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed the order while rejecting the interlocutory application filed by B Devendrappa, who was elected from Jagaluru assembly constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The election of the applicant was challenged by G Swamy by way of the election petition on the ground that he belongs to the Other Backward Community (OBC) and is ineligible to contest the election.
In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Devendrappa contended that the petition is barred under law, as the caste certificate issued in his favour holds good till it is cancelled by the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC). Only the DCVC formed under the Act of 1990, has the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the caste certificate. Thus, the election petition is not maintainable and impliedly barred in view of the Act of 1990, he contended.
However, senior counsel representing the petitioner (Swamy) contended that the high court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute questioning the caste certificate of a returned candidate and the high court only under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has the jurisdiction to try the questions raised in the petition.
The high court noted that it is true that the caste of a person cannot be different for different purposes. If a certificate is issued certifying a person to be caste ‘X’ for one purpose, his caste will be and should be ‘X’ for all other purposes as well. One cannot claim that his caste is ‘X’ for one purpose and ‘Y’ for another. However, said logic does not give primacy to the decisions of DCVC in derogation of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under the Act of 1951, the court said.