The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state Assemblies, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant telling the petitioner that he was approaching the wrong forum and should instead seek legislative intervention.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked in a lighter vein, "You are dialling the wrong number," while suggesting that the petitioner could organise protests and demonstrations to press for a change in the law.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that the judiciary could not introduce a system of periodic rotation when the existing constitutional and statutory framework did not provide for such a mechanism.
The court upheld the Allahabad High Court's refusal to direct the introduction of rotation, maintaining that the matter fell within Parliament's legislative authority.
𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀-𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
The petition was filed by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the Kadipur Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh's Sultanpur district, which has remained reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates for nearly seven decades.
Singh argued that the absence of a rotation mechanism violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 19 and restricted voters' electoral choices by limiting the candidates eligible to contest from the constituency.
He contended that the continued reservation of the seat had benefited a small number of political families rather than the broader community.
The petitioner sought a direction requiring authorities to consider rotating reserved constituencies, similar to the system followed in panchayat and municipal elections.
His counsel argued that periodic rotation would distribute the benefits and responsibilities of political reservation more evenly across constituencies.
𝗖𝗝𝗜 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀
During the hearing, the Chief Justice questioned why the petitioner had approached the judiciary for a change that required legislative action.
Referring to the prevailing atmosphere of demonstrations and public protests, he suggested that the petitioner could raise the demand through democratic mobilisation.
The petitioner's counsel responded that he had no intention of staging a protest and was also suffering from a sore throat.
The Chief Justice subsequently clarified that the petitioner was free to campaign for legislative reform and persuade elected representatives to reconsider the existing framework.
He emphasised that the judiciary could not substitute its judgment for that of Parliament in matters requiring changes to constitutional or statutory provisions.
𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Justice Bagchi questioned the petitioner's argument that the continued reservation of constituencies reinforced caste divisions or restricted meaningful electoral participation.
The Bench observed that such arguments appeared to assume that voters would necessarily support candidates belonging to their own caste or community.
Justice Bagchi said democratic choices could not be reduced to caste identities, particularly in a multiparty political system where voters could support parties based on their policies and ideologies.
The court also distinguished between the right to vote and the right to contest elections from a particular constituency.
It observed that the reservation of a seat did not prevent voters from exercising their franchise, while candidates who were ineligible to contest from a reserved constituency remained free to seek election from unreserved seats.
The Bench maintained that disagreement with the criteria used to identify reserved constituencies did not, by itself, establish that the legal framework was unconstitutional.
𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄
The petitioner relied on Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution, which provide for reservation and rotation of seats in panchayats and municipalities.
His counsel argued that a similar arrangement should apply to seats reserved for SCs and STs in state Assemblies.
However, the Bench pointed out that local government elections were governed by a separate constitutional framework.
Articles 330 and 332 provide for reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state legislative Assemblies, respectively, but do not mandate periodic rotation.
The court also examined Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for identifying reserved constituencies based on the proportion of SC and ST populations.
The Bench held that the provision did not require reserved seats to be rotated at fixed intervals.
Justice Bagchi observed that introducing such a requirement through judicial interpretation would amount to rewriting the law rather than interpreting it.
The Chief Justice also emphasised that the Supreme Court could not assume the legislative role of Parliament.
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
The Bench observed that the question of whether the continued reservation of particular constituencies contributed to caste-based divisions was a matter for lawmakers to examine.
It said the existing arrangement could not be declared unconstitutional merely because an alternative system might be considered preferable.
The court noted that Parliament remained free to consider introducing periodic rotation through appropriate legislative changes.
It also permitted the petitioner to approach public representatives and seek political consensus on the issue.
Declining to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that no sufficient ground had been established for judicial intervention.
The ruling leaves the existing system of identifying SC/ST reserved constituencies unchanged while making clear that any proposal for mandatory rotation must be pursued through the legislative process.