The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a petition seeking periodic rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The court maintained that it cannot function as a third chamber of Parliament or rewrite existing reservation laws.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, declined to interfere with the petition challenging the continued reservation of Uttar Pradesh’s Kadipur Assembly constituency.
The petitioner, Jagdish Singh, an elector from Kadipur in Sultanpur district, argued that the constituency had remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades. He sought a system of periodic rotation to allow different constituencies an opportunity for representation.
The petition also questioned Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides for identifying reserved constituencies based on the proportion of SC/ST population. The petitioner argued that the absence of rotation restricted electoral choices and violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 19.
During the hearing, the bench emphasised the distinction between judicial authority and legislative responsibility. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that introducing mandatory rotation would require Parliament to reconsider the existing framework.
“You are dialling the wrong number,” the CJI remarked, suggesting that the petitioner approach elected representatives instead. He also referred to the ongoing atmosphere of protests, saying the petitioner could raise his demand through democratic channels.
Justice Bagchi questioned the assumption that voters would necessarily vote along caste or community lines. He stressed that electoral choices remain with voters in a multiparty democracy.
The bench also noted that Articles 330 and 332 provide for SC/ST reservations in Parliament and state assemblies. However, they do not prescribe mandatory rotation of constituencies.
The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s position that introducing such a mechanism falls within Parliament’s jurisdiction. It allowed the petitioner to approach public representatives and build consensus for legislative changes.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional separation of powers, leaving any change to the existing reservation framework to Parliament.
