New Delhi [India], November 4 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking rotation of Assembly constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Uttar Pradesh, observing that the issue could be a legitimate ground for protest but should be taken up with Parliament rather than through judicial intervention.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the question of whether constituencies with a sizeable SC/ST population should remain reserved for decades, and whether such a practice could create divisions along caste lines, was a matter for the legislature to examine.
“This is a good season of protests. So this is also a good ground for protest,” the CJI remarked.
The bench suggested that the petitioner approach elected representatives and build support for a legislative reconsideration of the policy.
“You are dialling the wrong number. Raise your voice; the time is right now that the legislature, the Parliament should revisit the issue,” the CJI said.
The petition was filed by Jagdish Singh, an elector from the Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district, which has remained reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates for nearly six decades. He had challenged the absence of a rotation mechanism for reserved Assembly seats, contending that voters in such constituencies were left with no option but to choose from candidates belonging to the reserved category.
Singh had also challenged Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for identifying constituencies for SC/ST reservation in areas where the proportion of their population is comparatively high. He argued that the provision had resulted in certain constituencies remaining reserved for generations, unlike Panchayat and municipal elections, where the Constitution expressly provides for rotation of reserved seats.
The petitioner had approached the Allahabad High Court, which rejected his challenge in June this year. The High Court held that Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution prescribe the proportion of seats to be reserved for SC/ST communities but do not mandate rotation. It also held that providing for such a mechanism would fall within Parliament’s legislative domain.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the same constituencies had remained reserved for nearly seven decades and that the absence of rotation had restricted the electoral choices available to voters.
The bench, however, questioned how the continued reservation of a constituency could be said to take away a voter’s right to vote.
Justice Bagchi said the possible social consequences of the policy, including whether it could reinforce caste-based divisions, were issues for Parliament to examine and did not, by themselves, render the provision unconstitutional.
“Whether that is just or not, or whether it will create a sense of division in society on lines of caste, is for the legislature to examine. It is not something which will run counter to the Constitution,” he said.
The bench also explained that Articles 330 and 332 deal with determining the number of seats to be reserved in proportion to the SC/ST population, while Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act provides the methodology for identifying the constituencies where such reservation would apply.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the absence of rotation had allowed the same three or four political families to repeatedly secure election from these constituencies, defeating the larger objective of political representation and upliftment of SC/ST communities.
Justice Bagchi also questioned the basis for seeking rotation while retaining the principle of reserving constituencies where the population of the concerned community was comparatively high.
“What is the philosophy of fixing a constituency on the basis of the majority of a community and rotation? Your argument on rotation is not very persuasive,” he remarked.
The bench also questioned whether, in the absence of a statutory framework providing for rotation, it could direct the Delimitation Commission to periodically change the constituencies reserved for SC/ST candidates.
The Supreme Court noted that the Allahabad High Court had rejected the challenge to Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act and had also declined to direct rotation, holding that the matter fell within Parliament’s domain.
The apex court said it was not inclined to take a different view and dismissed the petition, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach public representatives and build consensus for adopting the principle of rotation.
The petitioner had sought the introduction of such a mechanism based on the reservation exercise carried out by the Delimitation Commission in 2008. (ANI)
Related reading