The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to direct the mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state legislative assemblies, holding that introducing such a system was a legislative decision beyond the judiciary’s authority.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana refused to interfere with an Allahabad High Court judgement that had rejected a demand for compulsory rotation of reserved constituencies.
The Court found no reason to question the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for identifying reserved constituencies in areas having a comparatively higher proportion of SC/ST residents.
The bench clarified that neither the Delimitation Act nor Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, which govern reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, require reserved constituencies to be rotated periodically.
Challenge Arising From Seven Decades of Reservation
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the 191-Kadipur assembly constituency in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh.
Singh challenged the continued reservation of the constituency for SC candidates, pointing out that it had remained reserved for nearly 70 years.
He argued that the absence of a rotation mechanism infringed constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 19 by limiting voters’ choice of candidates to members of the SC community.
According to the petitioner, keeping the same constituencies reserved for prolonged periods benefited a limited number of families instead of the broader community.
He sought a framework resembling the rotation system applicable to reservations in panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution.
Court Questions Assumptions About Caste-Based Voting
During the hearing, the bench examined the petitioner’s contention that reserving constituencies with a substantial SC/ST population reinforced caste divisions.
The judges questioned whether electoral preferences could automatically be attributed to the caste composition of a constituency.
The Court observed that political parties represented different ideologies and that voters in a multiparty democracy were generally expected to make electoral choices based on those ideologies rather than the caste or religion of individual candidates.
It further noted that voters might support or oppose a political ideology irrespective of the community to which its representative belonged.
The bench also rejected the assumption that voters belonging to a numerically dominant community would necessarily vote according to caste affiliations.
Such electoral decisions, it observed, belonged to voters and could not be determined through judicial pronouncements.
The judges additionally distinguished the right to vote from a claimed entitlement to contest elections from any particular constituency, observing that general-category candidates remained eligible to contest unreserved seats.
Legislative Change Requires Political Consensus
As Singh continued to seek judicial intervention, the bench told him that he was “dialling the wrong number”, indicating that the appropriate forum for his demand was the legislature.
The judges advised him to approach elected representatives and seek political consensus for incorporating a rotation requirement into the law.
In a lighter exchange, the bench referred to protests and slogan-shouting, suggesting that the proposed reform could also become a subject of public campaigning.
The petitioner submitted that the Allahabad High Court had itself considered rotation an ideal arrangement but had refrained from issuing directions because the issue required legislative action.
The Supreme Court, however, maintained that the desirability of rotating reserved constituencies and the possible social consequences of the existing method of identifying them were questions for lawmakers.
It held that the allegation that the present arrangement perpetuated caste divisions did not, by itself, establish the constitutional invalidity of the statutory provision.
Allahabad High Court’s Decision Left Undisturbed
The bench agreed with the High Court’s refusal to judicially introduce a rotation mechanism where the applicable constitutional provisions and legislation contained no such requirement.
It concluded that the High Court had correctly treated the proposed change as a matter within Parliament’s domain.
While declining to interfere with the judgement, the Supreme Court left Singh free to approach public representatives and seek support for legislation providing for rotation.
The bench also took note of the petitioner’s reliance on the reservation exercise undertaken by the Delimitation Commission in 2008 while reiterating that any change to the existing framework would have to emerge through the legislative process.
