Supreme Court declines to order rotation of SC/ST-reserved seats

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for SCs and STs in Parliament and State Assemblies, observing that decisions on such reservations fall within the legislature's domain and cannot be directed by courts

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and State Assemblies, saying that such decisions lie within the domain of the legislature and cannot be ordered by courts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court judgment upholding Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for the identification of reserved constituencies in areas having a comparatively higher proportion of SC/ST population.

---

The petitioner, Jagdish Singh, an elector from the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh, had challenged the continued reservation of the constituency for Scheduled Castes, claiming that it had remained reserved for nearly seven decades since its creation.

He contended that the absence of a rotation mechanism violated Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution and restricted the electoral choices of voters by limiting the candidates they could elect to members of the SC community.

He claimed that the existing arrangement benefited a limited number of political families rather than advancing the interests of the wider community.

Seeking a mechanism similar to the rotational reservation provided for panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution, the plea urged the bench to direct periodic rotation of SC/ST-reserved constituencies.

Justice Bagchi, during the hearing, said that in a multiparty democracy, voters were expected to make electoral choices based on political ideologies rather than caste or religious considerations.

“In a political democracy, there are multiple political parties having different ideologies. The voters are expected to vote for the party, not for the religion. You may like or dislike a particular political ideology. Who is representing that ideology becomes irrelevant. You vote for that ideology. So that also defeats your argument,” Justice Bagchi said.

The bench also distinguished between the right to vote and any claimed right to contest elections from a particular constituency, observing that candidates belonging to the general category remained eligible to contest from constituencies that were not reserved.

The CJI said that the petitioner had approached the wrong forum to seek a change in the policy, adding that the demand for rotation should be taken up with Parliament.

In a lighter vein, the CJI remarked that the petitioner could also take up the issue through public protests and demonstrations.

“The challenge to Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act has been turned down in the impugned judgment. The case of the petitioner is that the Assembly seats should be reserved on a rotational basis for members of ST and SC communities, as in municipal corporations.

“The High Court has turned down the case, observing that although ideally rotation ought to be followed, such a recourse cannot be directed by the court and is within the ambit of Parliament. We see no ground to take a different view,” the bench said in its order.

It, however, said that the petitioner was free to approach public representatives and persuade them to adopt the rotation principle.