The Supreme Court has ruled that the decision regarding the rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Parliament and state assemblies falls under the jurisdiction of the legislature. This ruling comes in response to a plea that sought mandatory rotation of these reserved seats. The court’s decision was reported by the Press Trust of India.

Details of the Case and Petitioner’s Argument

A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana chose not to interfere with an earlier judgment from the Allahabad High Court. This judgment upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which allows for the identification of reserved constituencies in areas with a higher concentration of SC and ST populations.

The petitioner, Jagdish Singh, a voter from the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur district, challenged the longstanding reservation of this constituency for Scheduled Castes. Singh argued that the constituency has remained reserved for nearly seventy years since its establishment.

He contended that the lack of a rotation mechanism infringes upon Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution, thereby limiting the electoral choices available to voters by restricting candidates to members of the SC community. Singh further claimed that the current arrangement primarily benefits a few political families rather than serving the broader interests of the community.

The plea proposed a system akin to the rotational reservation applicable to panchayats and municipalities, as outlined in Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a directive from the bench for the periodic rotation of constituencies reserved for SCs and STs.

Judicial Observations During the Hearing

During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi remarked that voters in a multiparty democracy should base their electoral choices on political ideologies rather than caste or religion. He noted that in a political democracy, various parties represent different ideologies, and voters should select parties based on these ideologies rather than personal affiliations.

Justice Bagchi stated, “You may like or dislike a particular political ideology. Who is representing that ideology becomes irrelevant. You vote for that ideology.” This perspective was aimed at countering the petitioner’s argument regarding the need for a rotation system.

The bench also differentiated between the right to vote and the right to contest elections from specific constituencies, indicating that candidates from the general category remain eligible to contest in non-reserved constituencies. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the petitioner had approached the incorrect forum for a policy change, suggesting that such demands should be directed towards Parliament.

Conclusion and Future Steps for the Petitioner

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to mandate the rotation of constituencies reserved for SC and ST communities. However, the bench encouraged the petitioner to engage with public representatives to advocate for the adoption of the proposed rotation principle. The Chief Justice added, in a lighter tone, that the petitioner could also consider public protests and demonstrations to further his cause.

The court concluded that the challenge to Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act had been appropriately dismissed by the High Court, which noted that while rotation is ideal, it is not within the court’s purview to enforce such a policy. The Supreme Court saw no grounds to deviate from this established view.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share