Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant made a witty observation during a Supreme Court hearing on a petition seeking periodic rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), suggesting that the petitioner should approach lawmakers rather than the judiciary.
“You’re dialling the wrong number. This is the good season for protests and naarebaazi (slogans). You can also do that,” the CJI remarked during the hearing.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an appeal challenging the continued reservation of certain SC/ST constituencies without periodic rotation.
The petitioner argued that several constituencies had remained reserved since 1972, allegedly allowing the same three or four families to repeatedly contest elections while limiting opportunities for other candidates.
The plea sought regular rotation of reserved constituencies, referring to recommendations made by the Delimitation Commission in its 2008 report. It contended that keeping constituencies reserved for the same communities over several decades restricted electoral choices and affected voters’ democratic rights.
However, the Supreme Court indicated that the issue involved legislative and constitutional policy decisions that could not be addressed through a petition under Article 32.
‘We Cannot Play the Role of a Third Chamber of Parliament’
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the reservation of constituencies was primarily a matter for Parliament and other constitutional authorities to consider.
He pointed out that although voters might have limited choices in reserved constituencies, their fundamental right to vote remained intact.
“The option may be limited, but your right to vote is there,” Justice Bagchi told the petitioner’s counsel.
The judge further explained that the judiciary could strike down a legal provision or read it down if it found manifest arbitrariness, but it could not rewrite constitutional provisions to introduce a new rotation mechanism.
“We cannot play the role of a third chamber of Parliament,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The bench also suggested that the petitioner should take up the matter with elected representatives and build public pressure for legislative changes.
CJI Surya Kant said people could raise their demands before lawmakers and make the issue an electoral concern.
Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the Petition?
The petitioner had challenged Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, arguing that SC/ST-reserved constituencies had not undergone rotation despite recommendations made by the Delimitation Commission.
The counsel also referred to the commission’s observations regarding rotation of reserved constituencies in local body elections.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that delimitation was a legislative exercise and that the guidelines issued for the process did not mandate a continuous or automatic rotation of reserved constituencies.
Justice Bagchi also noted that rotation in municipal and panchayat elections was governed by separate legislative provisions.
Dismissing the appeal, the bench declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, which had held that although rotation might be desirable, the matter fell within the domain of the legislature.
The Supreme Court left the petitioner free to approach elected representatives and persuade them to consider implementing the rotational principle in accordance with the Delimitation Commission’s recommendations.
The ruling underscores the distinction between judicial intervention and legislative policymaking, particularly in matters concerning electoral constituencies and reservation.