Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Rotating SC and ST Reserved Seats in Parliament and Assemblies

The top court on Wednesday dismissed a petition asking for mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state assemblies. Chief Justice Surya Kant led the Bench that turned down the plea, stating that making such policy changes is the job of the legislature rather than the judiciary.

Background

The case was brought by Jagdish Singh, a voter from the Kadipur assembly seat in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. He argued that his constituency had stayed reserved for nearly seventy years and that lacking a rotation system hurt voter choices and went against Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution. He wanted a rule like the one used for local bodies and panchayats under Articles 243D and 243T, and claimed the current setup helped only a few political families.

Court Observations

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that voters in a democracy choose parties and political views rather than the caste or religion of a candidate. The Bench also noted that voters can pick different ideologies, and separated the right to vote from any claim to run for office in a specific area since general category candidates can still contest open seats. The Chief Justice told the petitioner to take the matter to Parliament or use public protests, while noting that the court saw no reason to change the Allahabad High Court ruling which had upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.

Context

Reserved constituencies ensure that marginalized communities get political representation in legislative bodies. The Delimitation Act guides how these boundaries and reserves are set up across the country based on population numbers.