The Supreme Court ruled in A Raja’s election case that merely following religious rituals doesn’t mean a person professes that religion. It also stated that caste or community certificates can’t be challenged in election petitions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that simply observing or practicing religious rituals does not constitute professing that faith. This decision upheld the election of CPI(M) MLA A Raja from Kerala’s Devikulam constituency.
Raja’s election was challenged on the basis that he had converted to Christianity and therefore was ineligible to contest from Devikulam, a seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community.
The Bench, comprised of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, stated,
“It is relevant to observe that mere observance/performance of a ritual of/associated with any religion does not ipso facto and necessarily mean that the person ‘professes’ that religion.”
The Court also emphasized that a caste/community certificate cannot be challenged through an election petition.
The Supreme Court set-aside the Kerala High Court’s decision to nullify Raja’s election from the Devikulam constituency in the 2021 State assembly election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In March 2023, the High Court had ruled that Devikulam was a seat reserved for the SC community and that Raja, professing Christianity at the time of his nomination, was ineligible to contest. The High Court further stated that Raja could not claim to belong to the Hindu religion after converting to Christianity.
In reversing the High Court’s verdict, the Supreme Court emphasized the difficulty of concealing one’s religion or caste in the modern digital era,
“The production of some photographs or some rituals which may have been performed by the Appellant, nay, even assuming they were actually performed by the Appellant, at the cost of repetition, can, in no manner, take the place of evidence, especially when matters of the like herein are being considered by the Courts. In this regard, the High Court seems to have erred by shifting the burden of proof on the Appellant to prove in the negative the allegations.”
Senior Advocate V Giri represented Raja in the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Narender Hooda represented D Kumar, who had challenged Raja’s election.
Case Title: D Kumar v A Raja