Shri V. V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora and Others, 1960 (1) SCR 426

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in V. V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora & Others [1960 (1) SCR 426] dealt with a significant election law question arising under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in the context of a double-member parliamentary constituency where one seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribes and the other was general. The appellant, V. V. Giri, challenged the election of Dippala Suri Dora, arguing that a candidate who had filed nomination for a reserved seat could not be declared elected to the general seat, that Section 54(4) of the Act was ultra vires if interpreted otherwise, and that the respondent had ceased to be a Scheduled Tribe member. The majority (Gajendragadkar, J. delivering judgment for Sinha, Imam, Wanchoo, JJ.) held that in a double-member constituency, the election is conducted for the entire constituency and not for separate seats. A Scheduled Tribe candidate who files a declaration for the reserved seat does not forfeit his right to be elected to the general seat if he secures the requisite votes. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 54(4), ruling it consistent with Articles 14 and 330 of the Constitution. On the caste status issue, the Court held that caste in Hindu society is presently determined by birth and social recognition, and the appellant failed to prove that the respondent had attained Kshatriya status. Justice Kapur dissented, holding that a candidate for a reserved seat can only be elected to that seat, and if he wishes to contest both seats, he must file separate nominations and deposits. He also found that the respondent had elevated himself to Kshatriya status by conduct, thus losing his Scheduled Tribe status. The judgment has enduring significance for the interpretation of reserved constituency provisions, the scope of Section 54(4), and the social recognition principle in caste determination.

Keywords: Representation of the People Act 1951, double-member constituency, reserved seat, Scheduled Tribe, Section 54(4), caste determination, Article 330, election law.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Shri V. V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 539 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date:
May 20, 1959

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
B. P. Sinha, C.J., Jafar Imam, J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, JJ.

vi) Author:
P. B. Gajendragadkar, J. (for the majority); J. L. Kapur, J. (dissenting)

vii) Citation:
1960 (1) SCR 426

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • Article 14, Article 330, Article 334 – Constitution of India

  • Sections 4, 32, 33, 34, 54(4), 55, 63 – Representation of the People Act, 1951

  • Section 8(2) – Delimitation Commission Act, 1952

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None specified

x) Law Subjects:
Election Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Reservation in Political Representation

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case emerged from the 1957 General Election to the House of the People from the Parvatipuram double-member constituency in Andhra Pradesh. One seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribes, the other general. The dispute was not about counting irregularities but about whether a candidate for the reserved seat could be declared elected to the general seat.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, under Section 54(4), provided that in such constituencies, after declaring the highest vote-getter among Scheduled Tribe candidates as elected to the reserved seat, the remaining highest vote-getter would be declared for the general seat. The appellant contended this interpretation was unconstitutional, and also alleged the respondent had ceased to be a Scheduled Tribe member.

The case thus involved statutory interpretation, constitutional validity, and socio-legal determination of caste—core issues of Indian election jurisprudence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  • Constituency: Parvatipuram, Andhra Pradesh, double-member (one reserved for Scheduled Tribes).

  • Candidates:

    • General seat: V. V. Giri (Appellant), V. Krishnamoorthy Naidu (Respondent 3)

    • Reserved seat: Dippala Suri Dora (Respondent 1), B. Satyanarayana Dora (Respondent 2)

  • Votes polled:

    • Satyanarayana Dora – 1,26,792 (Reserved – elected)

    • Dippala Suri Dora – 1,24,604 (Reserved candidate)

    • V. V. Giri – 1,24,039 (General candidate)

    • Krishnamoorthy Naidu – 1,18,968 (General candidate)

  • Result: Respondent 2 elected to the reserved seat; Respondent 1 (second highest overall) declared elected to the general seat under Section 54(4).

  • Petition: Giri sought to void Respondent 1’s election and declare himself elected. Grounds:

    1. Reserved seat candidate cannot be elected to general seat.

    2. If otherwise, Section 54(4) ultra vires Constitution.

    3. Respondent 1 had ceased to be a Scheduled Tribe member (alleged conversion to Kshatriya).

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a candidate who files nomination for the reserved seat can be declared elected to the general seat in a double-member constituency.
ii. Whether Section 54(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 330.
iii. Whether Respondent 1 had lost Scheduled Tribe status at the time of election.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

  • Elections in a double-member constituency are seat-wise, not constituency-wise.

  • A candidate for a reserved seat is confined to that contest and cannot be shifted to the general seat.

  • Section 54(4), if allowing such shifting, violates Article 14 (equal protection) and Article 330 (reservation principles).

  • Election symbols, nomination forms, and campaign practices distinguish candidates for reserved and general seats, reinforcing seat-wise contests.

  • Caste in Hinduism is not solely by birth; respondent’s conduct, marital alliances, rituals, and self-identification as Kshatriya show he lost Scheduled Tribe membership.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

  • The election is for the entire constituency; reservation is an additional concession to certain candidates.

  • A Scheduled Tribe candidate can contest for both reserved and general seats without filing separate nominations.

  • Section 54(4) explicitly supports the returning officer’s action; it is constitutionally valid.

  • Caste status is determined by social recognition; mere self-assertion or cultural adoption of higher caste practices does not alter status.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 330 – Reservation of seats in the House of the People for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
ii. Section 54(4) – Procedure for declaring results in constituencies with reserved seats.
iii. Section 55 – Eligibility of reserved category members to hold general seats.
iv. Section 33(2) – Requirement of declaration by reserved category candidates.
v. Section 8(2), Delimitation Commission Act – Seat reservation in constituencies.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

  • Elections in a double-member constituency are constituency-based, not seat-based.

  • A Scheduled Tribe candidate’s declaration for the reserved seat does not preclude election to the general seat if votes permit.

  • Section 54(4) validly operationalizes Articles 330 and 55; it neither offends Article 14 nor undermines reservation.

  • Caste status change requires social recognition; unilateral acts are insufficient.

b. OBITER DICTA

  • The Constitution aims for a casteless society, but current realities require pragmatic recognition of social rigidity.

  • Reservation seeks to assure marginalized groups of political participation, not to restrict their electoral opportunities.

c. GUIDELINES 

  1. In double-member constituencies, the highest vote-getter among reserved category candidates fills the reserved seat; next highest among remaining fills the general seat.

  2. Reserved category candidates need not file separate nominations for general seats.

  3. Caste status change must be proved by community acceptance, not mere self-proclamation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment affirms a liberal interpretation of reservation provisions, ensuring inclusive electoral participation for Scheduled Tribe candidates while preventing misuse through artificial restrictions. It preserves constitutional equality by allowing merit-based election to general seats without penalizing candidates for availing reservation eligibility. The dissent underscores concerns about electoral clarity and the symbolic separation of reserved and general contests, reflecting a more formalistic reading of the law. The caste determination discussion remains a significant precedent for community acceptance as a determinant in caste status disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

  • K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan, (1999) 4 SCC 526 – On eligibility to contest elections.

  • V. V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora, 1960 (1) SCR 426 – Present case.

b. Important Statutes Referred

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 4, 32, 33, 34, 54(4), 55, 63.

  • Delimitation Commission Act, 1952 – Section 8(2).

  • Constitution of India – Articles 14, 330, 334.

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture