Wrong Number: SC Rejects Plea to Rotate SC/ST Reserved Seats in UP
The Supreme Court rejected a plea to rotate SC/ST reserved Assembly seats in UP, calling it a matter for Parliament rather than the judiciary.
In a significant observation, the Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking the mandatory rotation of Assembly constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Uttar Pradesh. The court remarked that while the issue might be a legitimate reason for public protest, it is a matter for the legislature to decide, not the judiciary.
"A Good Ground for Protest"
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana noted that the petitioner was essentially "dialling the wrong number" by approaching the court. The CJI pointed out that the current atmosphere is conducive to activism, stating, "This is a good season of protests. So this is also a good ground for protest."
The bench advised the petitioner to engage with elected representatives and build political support to encourage Parliament to revisit the existing policy regarding reserved seats.
The Core of the Dispute
The petition was brought forward by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the Kadipur Assembly constituency in the Sultanpur district. Singh highlighted that his constituency has remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly six decades. He argued that the lack of a rotation mechanism leaves voters with no choice but to elect candidates from the reserved category for generations.
Singh specifically challenged Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which identifies constituencies for reservation based on where the SC/ST population is comparatively high. He pointed out a discrepancy in the system, noting that rotation is already practiced in municipal and Panchayat elections as per constitutional provisions, but not in Assembly elections.
The "Family Politics" Argument
During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the absence of rotation has led to a stagnation in political representation. It was alleged that the same three or four political families have repeatedly won elections from these constituencies, which contradicts the original goal of uplifting SC/ST communities and ensuring broad political representation.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court questioned the logic behind the plea, with Justice Bagchi asking how the continued reservation of a seat could be seen as stripping a voter of their fundamental right to vote. The court further questioned the philosophy of demanding rotation while simultaneously wanting to keep the principle of reserving seats based on high community population.
The bench clarified the legal framework:
- Articles 330 and 332: These deal with the total number of seats to be reserved in proportion to the SC/ST population.
- Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act: This provides the specific methodology for identifying which constituencies get that reservation.
Justice Bagchi emphasized that whether the current system is "just" or if it creates caste-based divisions in society is a policy question for Parliament to examine. He stated that these social consequences do not make the provision unconstitutional.
Previous Legal Battle
Before reaching the apex court, the matter was heard by the Allahabad High Court, which rejected the challenge in June this year. The High Court had ruled that while the Constitution prescribes the proportion of reserved seats, it does not mandate their rotation, placing such a decision firmly within the legislative domain of Parliament.