NEW DELHI — Refusing to alter long-standing electoral reservation frameworks, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed a legal challenge seeking mandatory rotation of Assembly and parliamentary constituencies earmarked for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, ruled that establishing or altering reservation mechanisms remains an exclusive legislative function that cannot be modified through judicial orders.
Constitutional Boundaries and Democratic Principles
The judgment addressed a petition filed by a voter from Uttar Pradesh’s Kadipur constituency, who contested the seat’s continuous reservation for Scheduled Caste candidates since 1952. The petitioner argued that non-rotating reservations limit candidate options for general voters and requested a rotation system similar to local body elections.
Rejecting the argument, the bench established key legal and democratic principles:
-
Separation of Powers: The court affirmed that while constitutional provisions mandate SC and ST representation, setting specific selection criteria or implementing rotation systems is a policy matter reserved strictly for Parliament.
-
Integrity of the Democratic Franchise: The bench rejected the premise that reserved constituencies force caste-driven voting, observing that citizens cast ballots based on party platforms and political ideologies rather than personal demographics alone.
-
Distinction in Election Frameworks: The justices clarified that constitutional rules providing for rotation in local panchayat and municipal elections cannot be imported into assembly or parliamentary election frameworks via judicial reinterpretation.
Limits of Judicial Intervention
Addressing arguments regarding long-term electoral policy, the Chief Justice noted during the hearing that advocating for statutory changes requires pursuing legislative reform rather than seeking judicial intervention:
-
Legislative Advocacy: The bench emphasized that while citizens can advocate for Parliament to re-examine electoral reservation laws, the judiciary cannot act as a third chamber of Parliament to rewrite statutory provisions.
-
Standard of Arbitrariness: The court reiterated that disagreement with legislative policy does not render a law unconstitutional unless there is clear evidence of manifest arbitrariness.
