The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and State Assemblies, observing that the decision falls within Parliament’s legislative domain. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said courts cannot direct lawmakers to introduce a rotation policy. The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision and advised the petitioner to approach elected representatives to seek a change in the existing law.
CJI: Approach Parliament
The Bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by Jagdish Singh, an elector from Uttar Pradesh’s Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district.
Singh argued that the constituency had remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. He sought rotation similar to the system followed in panchayats and municipalities.
Rejecting judicial intervention, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the petitioner was “dialling the wrong number”, adding that the demand should be raised before Parliament.
In a lighter vein, the CJI also said: “This is a good season of protests, naarebaazi. So this is also a good ground for protest.”
The Court allowed Singh to approach public representatives and build consensus on the issue.
Also Read: SC Issues Notice To Centre, ECI On Plea Challenging Blanket Immunity For Election Commissioners
What The Bench Said
Justice Bagchi observed that voters in a multiparty democracy are expected to vote based on political ideology rather than caste or religion.
“You vote for that ideology. Who is representing that ideology becomes irrelevant. So that also defeats your argument,” he said.
He further questioned the assumption that voters in constituencies with a large SC population would necessarily vote along caste lines, saying that such democratic choices could not be judicially determined.
The petitioner had challenged Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, arguing that the absence of mandatory rotation violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 19.
The Supreme Court said it could not introduce a rotation requirement absent from the Constitution or the existing law.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier upheld the provision, holding that the identification of reserved constituencies was a legislative matter under Article 327.
In its order, the Supreme Court said it saw “no ground to take a different view” from the High Court’s judgment.
Also Read: Cabinet Clears Two-Year Extension For 75% of Agniveers; Fresh Chance To Join Armed Forces
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
