NEW DELHI, Nov. 4 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state legislative assemblies, holding that any change to the existing system falls within the domain of the legislature and cannot be directed by courts.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana refused to interfere with an Allahabad High Court judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for identifying reserved constituencies in areas with comparatively higher SC/ST populations.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant told the petitioner that he was "dialling the wrong number", indicating that the demand for introducing rotation should be taken to Parliament rather than the judiciary.
The bench observed that courts could examine the constitutional validity of legislation but could not rewrite statutory provisions to introduce a rotation mechanism that Parliament had not prescribed.
The petition was filed by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the Kadipur Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh's Sultanpur district. Singh challenged the continued reservation of the constituency for Scheduled Caste candidates, arguing that it had remained reserved for nearly seven decades without rotation.
He contended that the absence of a rotational system violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 19 by restricting electoral opportunities for candidates belonging to other communities.
The petitioner also argued that retaining the same constituencies as reserved for decades limited political participation and allowed electoral advantages to remain concentrated among a small number of political families.
He sought the introduction of a rotation mechanism similar to the arrangements applicable to panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that the constitutional framework governing reservations in Parliament and state assemblies differed from the provisions applicable to local bodies.
Articles 330 and 332 provide for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, respectively. The identification of constituencies is governed by the relevant delimitation legislation.
The bench noted that the existing statutory framework does not require periodic rotation of reserved constituencies and that introducing such a provision would require legislative intervention.
Justice Bagchi also questioned the assumption that voters necessarily make electoral choices along caste or community lines.
He observed that in a multiparty democracy, voters are expected to consider political ideologies and parties rather than merely the caste or religion of individual candidates.
The judge further noted that the reservation of a constituency for candidates belonging to a particular community did not automatically interfere with the voting rights of electors.
The bench also examined the argument that constituencies with a higher concentration of SC/ST residents might not require reservation because candidates from those communities could otherwise secure electoral victories.
Justice Bagchi observed that such reasoning rested on an assumption about voting behaviour that could not be treated as an established democratic principle.
The court maintained that whether the present system of identifying reserved constituencies should be replaced by a rotational arrangement was a matter of legislative policy.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed Singh's petition while observing that rotation could be considered desirable for advancing social and political justice.
However, the high court held that it could not direct Parliament to amend the Delimitation Act or introduce a statutory mechanism for rotating reserved constituencies.
It had ruled that Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act was neither unconstitutional nor violative of fundamental rights merely because it did not provide for periodic rotation.
Agreeing with that conclusion, the Supreme Court said it found no reason to adopt a different view.
The bench permitted the petitioner to approach elected representatives and seek political consensus for introducing a rotational system through appropriate legislative changes.
The ruling leaves the existing framework for identifying SC/ST reserved constituencies undisturbed while making clear that any proposal for mandatory rotation must be considered and enacted by Parliament rather than imposed through judicial directions.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.