The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the order passed by the Karnataka High Court which, while dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11, held that the Karnataka SC/ST/OBC Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide caste claims in an election petition.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh also passed an interim order and thereby stayed the Election Petition proceedings pending before the High Court.

The Court directed, "Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Meanwhile, further proceedings in Election Petition No. 19 of 2023 shall remain stayed."

AOR V. M. Kannan appeared for the petitioner, and Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi appeared for the respondent.

"Issue notice, returnable on 14.02.2025," the Court ordered.

Karnataka High Court's Order

On December 13, 2024, the High Court had held the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (the Act) 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 Court had dismissed an application seeking the rejection of an election petition challenging the caste status of B. Devendrappa (Respondent) the returned candidate from the Jagalur Assembly Constituency. The Bench also rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC observing that election disputes, including those questioning a candidate’s caste status, fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 80 and 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

The Election Petition was filed by G. Swamy (Petitioner) alleging that the Respondent did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) but instead was from the Other Backward Community, making him ineligible to contest from the ST-reserved Jagalur Assembly Constituency. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent fraudulently secured a caste certificate to contest the elections.

Contentions Before the High Court

The Respondent had opposed the Petition and filed an application seeking its rejection on grounds that the Petitioner failed to plead material facts constituting a cause of action and that the jurisdiction to decide caste validity lies with the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) under the Act, not the High Court. It was also submitted that the petition was barred by res judicata as the caste of the respondent had been upheld in a prior case.

Cause Title: B. Devendrappa v. G. Swamy [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1930/2025]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates V M Kannan (AOR), A Mahesh Chowdhary, Harimohana N., Mayank Singh, Rashi Singh

Respondent: Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi, Advocates Balaji Srinivasan (AOR), Harsha Tripathi, Praveenn Nath S

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Surya KantJustice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Sukriti Mishra

Legal Correspondent

Sukriti Mishra is a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She extensively covers the Supreme Court. She has completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022, she has previously worked with another legal news portal, where she extensively covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.