SC stays proceedings before Karnataka HC deciding HC’s jurisdiction to decide election dispute questioning caste of a returned candidate

Supreme Court: While considering the instant petition filed against a decision of Karnataka High Court in G. Swamy v. B. Devendrappa¹, wherein it had held that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court, to decide an election dispute questioning the caste of a returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., put a stay on further proceedings in G. Swamy (supra).

The respondent in the matter herein, had questioned the petitioner’s election to Jagaluru Vidhan Sabha Constituency. The constituency in question is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. According to the respondent, the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribe but belonged to the Other Backward Community, and therefore is ineligible to contest the election

,

The Single Judge Bench of Ananth Ramanath Hegde, J., in his judgment dated 13-12-2024, had rejected the Election Petition. The Court had observed that the caste certificate issued under Rule 3A(2)(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of appointments etc.,) Rules, 1992, though does not specify that the certificate would apply only for employment and admission to educational institutions, since the Act of 1990 in terms of Section 4, provides for issuance of certificate for appointment to any office in a civil service or civil post in the State of Karnataka and Section 4-A of the Act of 1990 provides for issuance of certificate to secure admission to any educational institution, the certificate issued under the Rules of 1992 cannot traverse beyond the scope of the parent Act of 1990. Hence, the certificate issued under the Rules of 1992 has nothing to do with the certificate issued for election to the legislative assembly.

The High Court had further pointed out that the State has not enacted any law or provision overstepping its legislative competence to curtail the scope of Sections 80 and 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This being the position there is no scope to raise a contention that in view of the Act of 1990, the High Court cannot decide the issue concerning the returned candidate’s caste.