The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the petitioner that the demand for mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state assemblies was a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.Hearing a plea for rotation of reserved constituencies, the Supreme Court said the Delimitation Act does not mandate periodic rotation of SC/ST seats.A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, remarked that he was “dialling the wrong number” and suggested that he approach elected representatives to build consensus for a change in the law.Declining to interfere with an Allahabad High Court judgment, the bench upheld the validity of Section 9 (1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which requires reserved constituencies to be identified in areas where the proportion of SC/ST residents is comparatively large. The provision does not mandate periodic rotation of such constituencies.The court also observed that whether identifying reserved constituencies on the basis of a higher concentration of SC/ST residents perpetuates caste divisions was a question for the legislature to consider and could not by itself render the existing law unconstitutional.It reiterated that the petitioner could approach elected representatives and seek a consensus for introducing the rotation principle through legislation.The petition was filed by Jagdish Singh, an elector of the 191-Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur district, which has remained reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades.

The plea argued that the absence of rotation violated the right to equality and other fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution, and restricted voters to choosing candidates only from the SC community. He also contended that the arrangement benefited a handful of families rather than the larger community and sought a rotation mechanism similar to the one provided for panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T.During the hearing, the court questioned the premise of the petitioner’s argument that concentrating reserved constituencies in areas with a larger SC/ST population entrenched caste divisions.It observed that in a multiparty democracy, voters were expected to choose representatives on the basis of political ideology rather than caste or religion. “In a political democracy, there are multiple political parties having different ideologies.

The voters are usually expected to cast their vote for the party, not for the caste or religion. You may like or dislike a particular political ideology.

Who is representing that ideology becomes irrelevant. You vote for that ideology.

So that also defeats your argument,” it said.The court also distinguished between the right to vote and any claimed right to contest elections from a particular constituency, pointing out that candidates from the general category remained free to contest from unreserved seats.When the petitioner pressed for judicial intervention, it remarked: “You are dialling the wrong number.” The bench suggested that the demand should instead be taken to Parliament, adding in a lighter vein:“This is a good season of protests, naarebaazi (sloganeering). So, this is also a good ground for protest.”The petitioner pointed out that the high court had itself acknowledged that rotation would be an ideal arrangement but had declined to issue directions, citing judicial restraint.But the bench questioned the assumption that voters in constituencies with a larger SC population would necessarily vote along caste lines and that reservation in such seats was therefore unnecessary. “That proceeds on the idea that a majority community will vote on community or caste lines.

They may not vote on community and caste lines. The high court cannot judicially pronounce on a democratic choice.

That is for the voters to decide,” it added.The court made it clear that it could not introduce a rotation requirement into the constitutional and statutory framework when neither Articles 330 and 332, which provide for reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, nor the Delimitation Act prescribed such a mechanism.In its order, the court said the high court had rightly declined to direct the introduction of rotation, holding that the matter fell within Parliament’s domain. “We see no ground to take a different view,” said the bench, while allowing the petitioner to approach public representatives to build consensus around the rotation principle, which he relied upon with reference to the reservation exercise undertaken by the delimitation commission in 2008.