‘Dialling the wrong number’: Supreme Court rejects plea for rotation of SC/ST reserved seats

The Supreme Court refused to order mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It said the Constitution and the Delimitation Act do not require reserved seats to move periodically between areas. Creating such a rule would therefore be a legislative task, not a judicial one.

The case involved Kadipur in Uttar Pradesh, which has remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. The petitioner argued that this denied equality and restricted voters to choosing SC candidates. He compared the demand with rotation rules used for panchayats and municipalities.

The bench upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. That provision identifies reserved constituencies where SC or ST residents form a comparatively large share. The court said the petitioner could approach elected representatives and build support for changing the law through Parliament.

A reserved constituency is an electoral area set aside for candidates from a constitutionally specified community, such as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Its purpose is to ensure that these communities have representation in legislatures. The article discusses reserved seats in Parliament and state assemblies under Articles 330 and 332.

The key difference is who may stand as a candidate. In a reserved constituency, the contest is restricted to candidates from the relevant SC or ST community. In an unreserved constituency, candidates from the general category can contest. The Supreme Court stressed that candidates from the general category remain free to contest unreserved seats.

The court also distinguished voting from contesting. Voters can choose among candidates in their constituency, but they do not have a claimed right to contest from any particular constituency. The petitioner’s concern was that long-term reservation limited this choice of candidates.

The Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur district has remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. That unusually long period made it central to Jagdish Singh’s challenge, because he argued that reservation without rotation could benefit a few families rather than the wider community.

The petition sought a rotation system similar to the one used for panchayats and municipalities. The Supreme Court did not accept that this could be imposed judicially. It said the Constitution and the Delimitation Act do not prescribe periodic movement of reserved constituencies between areas.

The article does not give a total number of SC-reserved seats in Parliament. It only identifies the constitutional provisions for reserved seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. Any precise parliamentary figure would therefore go beyond the facts supplied here. The court directed the petitioner toward elected representatives and legislative change.

Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, requires reserved constituencies to be identified in areas where the proportion of SC or ST residents is comparatively large. The basic idea is to locate reserved representation where these communities have a substantial presence. This connects the constituency’s demographic makeup with the purpose of political reservation.

The article uses Kadipur as an example. The constituency in Sultanpur district has remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. The petitioner argued that keeping seats reserved in the same places could entrench caste divisions and benefit a handful of families. The court questioned whether voters necessarily vote according to caste.

The Supreme Court said the demographic basis did not itself make the law unconstitutional. It also said democratic choices belong to voters, who may vote for political ideology rather than caste or religion. Whether the system should change remains a matter for Parliament.

When a constituency remains reserved for many elections, candidates from outside the specified SC or ST category cannot contest there. The petitioner said this restricted voters to choosing candidates only from the SC community. He also argued that the arrangement could benefit a handful of families instead of the larger community.

Kadipur, in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur district, has remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. The petitioner wanted seats to rotate among areas, as they do under the reservation arrangements for panchayats and municipalities. Rotation would spread the opportunity to contest reserved seats across different constituencies.

The Supreme Court did not decide that long-term reservation automatically violates equality. It said voters may choose representatives based on political ideology rather than caste or religion, and that candidates from the general category can contest unreserved seats. Any change now requires Parliament, not a judicial order.

The petitioner pointed to Articles 243D and 243T, which provide for reservation arrangements in panchayats and municipalities. He sought a comparable rotation principle for constituencies reserved for SC and ST candidates in Parliament and state assemblies. Rotation would move the reserved status among different areas over time.

The existing legislative framework for Parliament and state assemblies is different. Articles 330 and 332 provide for SC/ST seat reservation, while Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act identifies areas with comparatively large SC or ST populations. Neither the constitutional provisions nor the Act mandates periodic rotation.

The High Court acknowledged that rotation could be an ideal arrangement but declined to order it because the issue belonged to Parliament. The Supreme Court agreed. It said the petitioner could approach elected representatives and seek consensus for introducing rotation through legislation.

The Supreme Court’s role in this case was to examine the validity of an existing law. It could decide whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, conflicted with constitutional rights. It could also interpret the constitutional provisions governing reserved seats.

But the requested remedy was different. Mandatory rotation would add a new requirement to the election framework. Articles 330 and 332, along with the Delimitation Act, provide for reserved seats and their identification, but do not prescribe periodic rotation. The court said it could not insert that missing mechanism itself.

This reflects the division between judicial review and lawmaking. The court upheld the High Court’s decision not to direct rotation. It said the petitioner should approach Parliament and elected representatives, build consensus, and seek a legislative amendment. The court also rejected the claim that the present system was unconstitutional merely because it might perpetuate caste divisions.