‘Petitioners knocking on the wrong door, do protest’:SC refuses plea seeking rotation of reserved Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha seats

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a petition seeking the rotation of reserved seats. CJI Suryakant told the petitioner why he was protesting instead of approaching the court. He said jokingly, “You are dialling the wrong number. This is an era of protests and movements. Perhaps you should do the same.” The petition sought mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state Legislative Assemblies. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter. The petitioner’s lawyer said he had no intention of staging a protest. He also said that his throat was sore. Jagdish Singh is a voter in the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur district. He had challenged the seat’s having remained reserved for the SC since its first election in 1952. He said that this had benefited only four or five families. He sought directions to the authorities to consider implementing rotation in the reservation of Assembly constituencies. A rotation system for reserved seats in panchayat and municipal elections is already in place. The petitioner sought the implementation of a similar system for Assembly constituencies as well. He said that the absence of a rotation system violated Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution. This restricted voters’ choice of candidates. According to the petitioner, voters could choose only from among candidates belonging to the SC community. On this basis, he challenged the existing provision for reserved seats. Denial that voting is based on caste A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said it was incorrect to assume that voting was based on caste. Justice Bagchi said, “This argument is based on the assumption that the majority community will vote on the basis of caste or community. That is not necessarily the case.” He said the court could not make a judicial pronouncement on democratic decisions. That decision had to be made by the voters. Justice Bagchi said that reserving a seat did not affect a person’s right to vote. He said, “Your right to vote remains intact. You are free to vote for a candidate from any community.” He further said, “The claim that you cannot vote for a candidate from your own community cannot be considered a valid argument.” Justice Bagchi also said that the right to contest an election was not limited to one seat. A person could contest from other unreserved seats. No voting on the basis of religion and caste Justice Bagchi said that in a multi-party democracy, voters were expected to vote on the basis of political parties and their ideologies. He said, “Voters are expected to vote for the party and its ideology, not on the basis of religion.” He said that a person could support or oppose an ideology. The identity of the person representing that ideology then ceased to be relevant. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in a petition seeking the implementation of a rotation system for reserved seats. The bench said that Article 332 of the Constitution provides for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Which seats are to be reserved is a separate issue. The court said that mere disagreement with the criteria adopted for reserving a seat does not render the entire process unconstitutional. The court’s role is to examine whether there has been any clear or manifest arbitrariness in the process. Justice Bagchi said that it was for the legislature to assess whether prolonged reservation leads to a growing sense of caste-based divisions in society. He said that an existing law cannot be declared unconstitutional on this ground alone. Court says-The Constitution cannot be rewritten The petitioner’s lawyer cited Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution. These Articles provide for reservation and rotation in panchayats and urban local bodies. Justice Bagchi said that the Constitution has a separate arrangement for local body elections. The court cannot rewrite constitutional provisions. When the lawyer sought a different interpretation of the law to apply the rotation system to Assembly seats as well, Justice Bagchi said, “We cannot play the role of the third House of Parliament.” After this, CJI Suryakant said again, “You are dialling the wrong number. This is a time for demonstrations and protests. Perhaps you should do the same.” The lawyer apologised and said that he had no intention of staging a protest. He said that he had a sore throat. At this, CJI Suryakant said, “You can certainly raise your voice and say that the time has come for Parliament to reconsider this issue. But only the legislature can take this decision.”