‘Dialled wrong number in season of dharna, go protest’: CJI’s quip on plea seeking rotation of SC-ST reserved seats

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday referred to the multiple protests that have been taking place in the country while rejecting a plea seeking mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state assemblies but quipped in a lighter vein that the petitioner may stage protests and demonstrations for the cause.

“You are dialling the wrong number. This is the good season for protests and naarebaazi (slogans). You should also do the same,” the CJI said, adding, “This is also a good ground for protest.”

The counsel for the petitioner apologised, stating that he had no intention of staging a protest and that he was suffering from a sore throat.

SC bench upholds Allahabad High Court order

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana upheld the Allahabad high court order validating Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for the identification of reserved constituencies in areas where the proportion of SC/ST residents is comparatively high.

The bench, however, said that the petitioner was free to approach public representatives and persuade them to adopt the principle of rotation.

The petitioner, Jagdish Singh from the 191-Kadipur Assembly Constituency in Uttar Pradesh's Sultanpur district, had challenged the continued reservation of his constituency for Scheduled Castes, claiming that it had remained reserved for over seven decades since the first election in 1952.

He argued that the absence of a rotation mechanism violated Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution and restricted voters’ electoral choices by limiting the candidates they could elect to members of the SC community.

He further claimed that the existing arrangement benefited a handful of political families rather than advancing the interests of the wider community.

Petitioner sought periodic rotation of SC/ST-reserved constituencies

Seeking a mechanism similar to the rotational reservation provided for panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution, the petitioner urged the bench to direct periodic rotation of SC/ST-reserved constituencies.

The bench of Chief Justice Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said an assumption cannot be made that voting is based on caste.

“This argument is premised on the assumption that the majority community will vote based on caste or community. That is not necessarily the case. The court cannot make a judicial pronouncement on democratic choices; that is a decision for the voters to make,” Justice Bagchi pointed out.

The bench clarified that it could not rewrite the Constitution or the statute by introducing a rotation requirement that finds no mention in Articles 330 and 332 or the Delimitation Act.

‘Cannot assume the role of third chamber of Parliament’

“We cannot assume the role of a third chamber of Parliament,” Justice Bagchi remarked when the counsel urged the court to interpret the law in a way that would extend the rotation system to Assembly seats.

The bench also distinguished between the right to vote and any claimed right to contest an election from a particular constituency. It observed that candidates belonging to the general category remain eligible to contest from constituencies that are not reserved.

The Allahabad high court had held that Articles 330 and 332 merely prescribe the number of reserved seats in proportion to the population and leave the methodology for identifying reserved constituencies to Parliament under Article 327.

It had found Section 9(1)(c) neither ultra vires nor violative of fundamental rights, ruling that courts cannot issue a mandamus directing the legislature to introduce a rotation provision. While acknowledging that rotation could better advance social and political justice by allowing SC/ST candidates to contest even from constituencies with smaller reserved-category populations, the high court had emphasised that the policy decision rests exclusively with Parliament.