“Arab Numerals” Should Actually Be Known As “Hindu Numerals”, It’s Time To Understand Term ‘Hindu’ As Having Territorial Connotation: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court interestingly remarked that “Arab numerals” should be actually known as “Hindu numerals” and it is time to understand the term ‘Hindu’ as having territorial connotation.
The Madurai Bench remarked thus in a writ petition challenging the election of a person as member of the syndicate of the Bharathidasan University.
A Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed, “There was an interesting detour during arguments. When the petitioner's counsel employed the expression “Arab numerals”, I intervened to remark that they should actually be known as “Hindu numerals”. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent was careful enough to say “Indian numerals”. In fact, Jawaharlal Nehru in his 'Discovery of India' talks of “Hind numerals and Indian numerals”. 'History of Hindu Mathematics' by B.Data and A.Singh (1935) convincingly establishes that the Arab scholars borrowed from our ancient system. In that monumental work, the expression “Hindu numerals” alone is found. The Nehruvian hesitation is probably on account of equating the term “Hindu” with religion. … It is time to understand the term “Hindu” as having territorial connotation.”
Advocate G. Prabhu Rajadurai appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Advocate Lajapathy Roy and Standing Counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as member of the syndicate of the Bharathidasan University which was held in January this year. 37 senate members were to elect 2 syndicate members and there were 4 candidates in the fray. One Thiru. Gopala Krishnan obtained 14 first preferential votes and he sailed through without any difficulty. There was a tie between the petitioner and the respondent as both got 8 first preferential votes.
To break the deadlock, there was a draw of lots and there was no dispute regarding the manner in which it was conducted. A lady officer picked one of the lots and it contained the name of the respondent, who was declared the winner. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed before the High Court. Two questions arose for consideration before the Court. The first was regarding the invalidation of one ballot paper and the second was regarding the interpretation of the results of the draw of lots.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “Before I commence my enquiry, I have to bear in mind that an electoral outcome represents the Will of the electorate and that it cannot be casually or easily disrupted. A strict approach is warranted. An election result is not a low hanging fruit to be plucked with ease.”
The Court further took note of the fact that one ballot paper in which the first preferential vote was cast in favour of the petitioner had been invalidated on the ground that the marking of the second preference was not as per instructions and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the voter concerned had employed Roman numeral instead of Arab numeral and that this would not go to the root of the matter.
“In any event, the second preferential vote alone should have been invalidated and not the entire ballot paper. Since there is no ambiguity regarding the first preferential vote, the returning officer ought to have declared the petitioner as winner as he had secured 9 votes compared to eight obtained by the third respondent. The invalidation of the ballot paper had prejudicially affected the outcome”, it said.
The Court enunciated that by putting the figure “11”, the ballot paper has become recognizable and since there were only four candidates, the question of putting “11” does not arise at all. It emphasised that the voter concerned could have written 1, 2, 3 or 4 or I, II, III or IV if at all.
“Thus, Clause 12(b) got attracted and the entire ballot paper became invalid. The returning officer was justified in rejecting the said ballot paper in its entirety. … When specific instructions had been issued as to how the vote should be marked, the voter is obliged to conform to the same. 1, 2, 3... alone should have been put. He did not have the choice of employing equivalent expressions or figures. What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. This rule of literature does not hold good in election law”, it added.
The Court observed that 2 and II may have the same mathematical value but they will not have the same result when it comes to marking on a ballot paper.
“Dr.S.Radhakrishnan asserted in 'The Hindu View of Life' that the term “Hindu” had originally a territorial and not a credal significance. This was cited in Sastri Yagnapurushadji and ors v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya [AIR 1966 SC 1119]”, it noted.
The Court also referred to a Book written by famous politician Shashi Tharoor namely “Why I am a Hindu” in which he wrote –
“In many languages, French and Persian amongst them, the word for Indian is Hindu. Originally, Hindu simply meant the people beyond the river Sindhu, or Indus.”
Coming back to the case, the Court said, “If there is some doubt regarding second preferential vote, then the first preferential vote can be taken into account and the ballot paper will not be rendered invalid. But if making a mark on the ballot paper has rendered it recognizable, then the invalidity will affect the entire ballot paper. I answer the first question in favour of the respondents.”
The Court, therefore, held that the respondent was rightly declared as a winner and answered the second question also in favour of the respondents.
“The principle of estoppel by conduct would apply against the petitioner. The clock cannot be put back”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Dr. D. Muthuramakrishnan v. The Bharathidasan University & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates G. Prabhu Rajadurai and J. Anandkumar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Lajapathy Roy and Standing Counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan.