‘Karnataka SC, ST and OBC (Reservation of Appointments) Act of 1990 does not take away High Court’s jurisdiction to decide dispute over caste of elected candidate to Legislative Assembly’

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 High Court of Karnataka has said.

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 High Court of Karnataka has said.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed the order while rejecting an application, filed by B. Devendrappa, Member of the Legislative Assembly from Jagalur constituency, seeking to reject a petition questioning his election to the Assembly in the elections held in 2023.

One of the allegations made in the petition, filed by G. Swamy of the Samajawadi Party, that Mr. Devendrappa had falsely declared that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe (ST), to which caste the constituency was reserved, even though he belonged to Myasa Nayaka community, which is a backward caste in Karnataka.

On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of Mr. Devendrappa that only the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC), formed under the 1990 Act had the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the caste certificate, and the election petition questioning his caste was not maintainable before the High Court in view of the provisions of the 1990 Act.

“On a conjoint reading of Sections 80 (election petitions) and 80A (High Court to try election petitions), 100(1)(a) (grounds for declaring election to be void) and Section 5(a) (qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly of the Act of 1951, it is explicit the election petition questioning the election of a returned candidate on the ground that the returned candidate does not possess the prescribed qualification has to be decided only by the High Court, and none else,” held Justice Hegde.

The Act of 1990 did not provide anything concerning the election to the Legislative Assembly or election dispute at all, the court pointed out.

Also, if the DCVC passed an order in connection with the caste certificate issued to contest the election, any finding on the validity of the said caste certificate did not bind the High Court from deciding an election petition under Section 80 and 80A of the Act of 1951, as the Act of 1990 and the Action of 1951 operated in different fields, the court made it clear.