A Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Darmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan heard the matter. Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan, appearing for the Election Commission, accepted notice and sought time to obtain instructions. The Bench posted the matter after two days for further hearing.
During the hearing, the Court questioned how election officials could enforce the relief sought. The Bench asked how Returning Officers could verify a candidate’s religion during scrutiny of nomination papers.
“Returning Officer has to go by the certificate and declaration filed,” the Bench observed. It noted that candidates submit caste certificates and sworn declarations along with their nominations.
The Court then asked how authorities could look beyond those documents. It referred to cases of conversion or reconversion and noted that such issues may need evidence and adjudication. The Bench said election officials may not have the power to conduct that exercise. “How will you test it?” the Court asked.
The Bench also noted that a false declaration could later lead to a legal dispute. “If ultimately it is found that the certificate is not rightly used, it is a dispute,” the Court remarked.
The Court further referred to Article 329(b) of the Constitution. It noted that the provision restricts judicial interference once the election process begins.
Hindu Munnani leader Arjun Sampath filed the plea. He relied on the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. He argued that Scheduled Caste status remains confined to persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism.
The petitioner also cited a recent Supreme Court judgment. According to him, the judgment held that persons professing other religions cannot claim Scheduled Caste status. He described that disqualification as “categorical and absolute.”
Based on this, the petitioner argued that Returning Officers must strictly scrutinise nomination papers. He urged them to reject ineligible candidates at the threshold.
The Bench, however, questioned whether such a direction would force election officials to conduct a “roving enquiry” into a candidate’s religious identity.
The High Court refused interim relief at this stage. It observed that nothing irreversible would happen in the next 48 hours. The Bench said it could examine the issue in detail on the next date.
The Court will hear the matter again after two days. By then, the Election Commission and the other authorities are expected to place their responses on record.
