Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 701 of 2004
PETITIONER:
SANDHYA THAKUR
RESPONDENT:
VIMLA DEVI KUSHWAH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/2005
BENCH:
C.J.I,G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
1. The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Barhmin. She married
one Naresh Kumar Thakur who is a Namdev by caste. In the election to the
Municipal Corporation of Gwalior, the appellant filed her nomination for
election for the post of a Corporator for Ward No.50, a ward reserved for
backward communities. The appellant was declared elected. The defeated
candidate - the respondent herein challenged the election of the appellant in
an Election Petition. The District Judge held that the nomination paper of
the appellant was wrongly accepted and that her election was liable to be set
aside since she could not contest the seat reserved for backward
communities. The appellant filed a revision before the High Court. The
High Court after consideration of the relevant aspects confirmed the decision
of the District Court. The court overruled the contention of the appellant
that the Circular dated 12.0.3.1997 issued by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh was restricted to employment or admission alone and did not apply
to elections to local bodies. The High Court also noticed the decisions of
this Court in Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University and others ( 1996 (3)
SCC 545 ), N.E. Horo vs. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh (AIR 1972 SC
1840 ) and Kailash Sonkar vs. Smt. Maya Devi ( AIR 1984 SC 600 ).
2. In the light of the decision in Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin
University and others (supra) and our decision rendered today in Civil
Appeal Nos.4413-14 of 2003, which were heard along with this appeal, it
must be held that the appellant, who by birth did not belong to a backward
class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a
backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male
of that community. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that
the appellant was entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward
community merely because of her marriage to a person belonging to the
Namdev community or caste. We also see no reason to differ from the High
Court in its view that the Circular dated 12.0.3.1997 was not restricted in its
operation to employment and admission to an educational institution, but
was also relevant and applicable in elections to local bodies. It is, thus,
found that both the reasons given by the High Court for affirming the
decision of the District Judge setting aside the election of the appellant are
sustainable. In view of this we have no hesitation in confirming the
decision of the High Court and in dismissing this appeal. Hence, we
dismiss this appeal with costs.