Supreme Court dismisses plea for rotation of reserved seats for SC/ST in Parliament and State Assemblies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Parliament and state legislative assemblies. According to a report by Hindustan Times, the Court clarified to the petitioner that this matter pertains to the legislature, not the judiciary.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohanan remarked sarcastically to the petitioner that they were "dialling the wrong number". The Court suggested that they should approach elected representatives to build consensus for amending the law.

Refusing to interfere with the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the bench upheld the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. According to this section, reserved constituencies are to be determined in areas where the proportion of SC and ST residents is comparatively higher. There is no mandatory requirement for the periodic rotation of such constituencies in this provision.

The Court observed that whether determining reserved constituencies based on a higher population of SC/ST residents increases casteism is a question for the legislature to consider. The current law cannot be declared unconstitutional solely on these grounds. The Court reiterated that the petitioner may approach elected representatives to introduce the principle of rotation through law.

The plea was filed by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency of Sultanpur district in Uttar Pradesh. This constituency has been reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. The petition argued that the absence of rotation violates the right to equality and other fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution, as voters are forced to choose only SC candidates.

Jagdish Singh further argued that this arrangement benefits only a few families instead of the entire community. He demanded that a rotation system similar to the one under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution for Panchayats and Municipalities should also be implemented here.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the petitioner's argument that reserving seats in areas with higher SC/ST populations strengthens casteism. The Court noted that in a multi-party democracy, voters choose representatives based on political ideology rather than caste or religion. The Court stated, "In a political democracy, there are several political parties with different ideologies. Generally, voters vote for the party, not for caste or religion. You may or may not like a particular political ideology. Who represents that ideology becomes irrelevant. You vote for that ideology, therefore your argument fails."

The Court distinguished between the right to vote and the claimed right to contest elections from a specific constituency. The Court pointed out that general category candidates are free to contest elections from non-reserved seats.

When the petitioner insisted on judicial intervention, the Court repeated, "You are dialling the wrong number." The bench suggested that this demand should be taken to Parliament and added lightly, "This is a good season for protests and sloganeering, so this is the right place to protest."

The petitioner had pointed out that the High Court itself had admitted that rotation could be an ideal arrangement, but had refused to issue directions while maintaining judicial restraint. However, the Supreme Court questioned the assumption that voters in constituencies with a higher SC population would mandatorily vote on the basis of caste and therefore reserved seats there are unnecessary. The Court stated that this ideology is based on the belief that the majority community will vote on the basis of community or caste.