Supreme Court dismisses plea for rotation of SC/ST seats

According to a report by Hindustan Times, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Parliament and State Legislatures.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice M. Mohana told the petitioner that the demand for rotation of reserved seats is a matter of legislative change, which is the prerogative of the legislature and not the judiciary. The court suggested that the petitioner approach elected representatives to build consensus for amending the law.

While refusing to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's judgment, the bench upheld the validity of Section 9 (1)(c) of the Delimited Act, 2002. According to this section, reserved constituencies are identified in areas where the proportion of SC/ST residents is relatively higher. This legal provision does not mandate periodic rotation of reserved constituencies.

The court observed that whether identifying reserved constituencies based on the high proportion of SC/ST residents promotes caste division is a matter for the legislature to consider. This fact alone cannot render the existing law unconstitutional.

The plea was filed by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the 191-Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh's Sultanpur district. This constituency has been reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. The petitioner argued that the lack of rotation violates the right to equality and other fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution. He further argued that this arrangement benefits only a few families instead of the entire community. He sought a mechanism similar to the rotation system provided under Articles 243D and 243T for Panchayats and Municipalities.

During the hearing, the court questioned the petitioner's argument that the concentration of reserved seats in areas with SC/ST populations strengthens caste division. The court observed that in a multi-party democracy, voters are expected to choose representatives based on political ideology rather than caste or religion. The court stated, "In a political democracy, there are many political parties with different ideologies. Voters generally vote for a party, not for caste or religion. You may choose or dislike a particular ideology, but who represents that ideology is irrelevant. You vote for that ideology, hence your argument fails."

The court also clarified the distinction between the right to vote and the right to contest elections from a specific constituency. It noted that general category candidates are free to contest in non-reserved seats.

When the petitioner urged judicial intervention, the bench remarked, "You are dialing the wrong number." The bench suggested that the demand should be taken to Parliament. It lightheartedly added, "This is a good time for protest and slogans, so there is a good basis for this protest as well."

The petitioner pointed out that the High Court itself had admitted that rotation would be an ideal arrangement, but had refused to issue directions citing judicial restraint. However, the bench questioned the assumption that voters in SC-populated constituencies will inevitably vote on the basis of caste and therefore reservation is not required there. The court said this is based on the ideology that the majority community will vote on the basis of caste or caste lines.