The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a petition challenging the continued reservation of certain Assembly constituencies for the Scheduled Castes without rotation.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing Special Leave Petition against an Allahabad High Court judgment which upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. The provision requires reserved constituencies to be identified, as far as practicable, in areas where the proportion of the SC/ST population is comparatively large.
Counsel of the petitioner argued that some constituencies had remained reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates for several decades, without any rotation. He submitted that the arrangement restricted voters’ choices and argued that the principle of rotation, followed in elections to Panchayats and Municipalities, should also be considered for Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies.
Counsel referred to a report of the Delimitation Commission which had acknowledged the demand for rotation of reserved constituencies and recommended that the government consider incorporating suitable provisions in law. He also argued that the continued reservation of the same constituencies raised concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Bench, however, questioned whether the absence of rotation could be treated as an infringement of the right to vote. Justice Bagchi observed that the right to vote does not entitle a voter to insist that a particular constituency be reserved or opened for candidates of a particular category. He also pointed out that a candidate is not restricted to contesting from only one constituency. He remarked:
“
“Your right to vote is not restricted to a particular constituency. You can vote for a candidate, but you cannot say that I cannot vote for a candidate belonging to my community. That cannot be treated as a valid argument. The right to contest is also not restricted to one constituency. There are 543 constituencies to choose from. There are multiple political parties with different ideologies, and voters are expected to vote for a party and its ideology. Therefore, who represents that ideology becomes relevant, rather than insisting on a particular candidate or constituency.”
The Bench further indicated that the question of introducing rotation in the reservation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies was a matter for the legislature to consider. It observed that Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution do not prescribe a rotational mechanism, unlike Articles 243D and 243T, which provide for rotation in Panchayat and Municipal elections.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier held that it could not issue a direction to Parliament to amend the law to introduce rotation of reserved constituencies. While acknowledging that rotation could advance political representation of SC/ST candidates from areas where their population is comparatively lower, the High Court had left the issue to Parliament.