Today(26th Sept), The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on CPI(M) leader A Raja’s plea challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision to nullify his election from the Devikulam Assembly seat over eligibility issues. The case centers on allegations by Congress leader D Kumar, who claims Raja was ineligible to contest for the SC-reserved seat due to questions surrounding his caste credentials.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(26th Sept), The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgement on a crucial plea filed by CPI(M) leader A Raja, who is challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision to nullify his election from the Devikulam Assembly seat in the Idukki district. The case revolves around whether Raja was eligible to contest for a seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) community.
A Raja’s victory in the 2021 Assembly elections from Devikulam has been under scrutiny following an election petition filed by Congress leader D Kumar. Kumar, who was the runner-up in the election, alleged that Raja was ineligible to contest from a seat that is reserved exclusively for Scheduled Caste candidates. He questioned Raja’s caste credentials, arguing that Raja did not belong to the SC community and, therefore, was not qualified for the reserved seat.
D Kumar, who was defeated by Raja by a margin of 7,848 votes in the 2021 Assembly polls, took the matter to the Kerala High Court, which, on March 20, 2023, ruled in his favor by setting aside Raja’s election. The court declared the election void under Section 98 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
During the hearing, a bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, heard arguments from both sides. Senior advocate V Giri appeared on behalf of A Raja, while senior advocate Narender Hooda represented D Kumar.
Raja’s legal team argued that he was indeed eligible to contest from the Devikulam seat. The crux of his defense was that he belonged to the Hindu Parayan community, a recognized Scheduled Caste in Kerala. Raja presented a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Devikulam to support his claim, stating-
“I am a member of the Hindu Parayan community according to the laws in Kerala, and this is verified by the certificate issued by the Tahsildar.”
He further contended that the objections raised by Kumar regarding his nomination were dismissed correctly by the Returning Officer.
“The Returning Officer appropriately dismissed the objections to my nomination, as there was no legal foundation for the assertion that I was ineligible.”
-Raja stated.
ALSO READ: Split Verdict by Supreme Court Bench in 1995 Custodial Death Case in Maharashtra
Raja also addressed allegations regarding his religious background, stating that he had never converted to Christianity, nor had his parents.
“My parents have never converted to Christianity, and I have never been baptized. My wife is Hindu, and our marriage was performed according to Hindu customs.”
-he added, further supporting his stance.
Raja emphasized that his marriage ceremony adhered strictly to Hindu rites, which included the lighting of a customary lamp and the tying of a ‘thali’ (a sacred necklace) around his wife’s neck, which is a significant part of Hindu marriage traditions. He argued that this demonstrated his continued practice of the Hindu faith.
On the other hand, D Kumar contested Raja’s claims, alleging that he was not eligible to contest from the SC-reserved constituency. According to Kumar, Raja was a Christian who had been baptized at a CSI church in the hill district, which would disqualify him from claiming membership in the Hindu Parayan community. He also accused Raja of submitting a fake caste certificate to bypass election rules.
“Raja was a Christian, baptized in a CSI church, and submitted a fake certificate to claim eligibility for the SC-reserved seat,”
– Kumar asserted.
Kumar also highlighted that Raja’s wife was a Christian and claimed that their marriage was conducted following Christian religious rites. These allegations further supported his argument that Raja did not meet the criteria for contesting the Devikulam seat, which is reserved for members of the SC community.
Agreeing with Kumar’s submissions, the Kerala High Court ruled in March 2023 that Raja’s election was invalid. The court pointed to several inconsistencies in Raja’s statements about his marriage and religious identity.
“Raja’s evasive responses concerning his marriage and the ceremony suggest a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.”
-the High Court noted in its judgement.
The High Court further observed that the evidence pointed towards Raja professing Christianity at the time of submitting his nomination.
“The documents clearly indicate that the respondent (Raja) was actively practicing Christianity when he filed his nomination. Therefore, following his conversion, he cannot assert that he is a member of the Hindu religion.”
– the court ruled, adding that Raja’s nomination should have been rejected by the Returning Officer.
Another significant factor in the High Court’s ruling was the question of whether Raja’s predecessors migrated to Kerala before the promulgation of the 1950 Presidential Order, which declared Hindu Parayans as part of the SC community in Kerala. The court concluded that Raja failed to provide adequate proof on this matter.
“There was an utter failure on the part of Raja to prove that his ancestors migrated to Kerala before the 1950 order was issued,”
– the court observed.
The court summed up its decision by stating-
“On both grounds, it is clear that Raja is not a member of the Hindu Parayan community within the state of Kerala, and thus not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly reserved for a Scheduled Caste.”
In its final judgement, the Kerala High Court declared Raja’s election from the Devikulam Assembly seat void under Section 98 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, the court did not address the issue of whether Kumar should be declared the elected candidate. “There is no claim for the petitioner (Kumar) for declaring him as the returned candidate from the said Constituency; hence, no such issue was taken up for consideration,” the court clarified.
