Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant gave a witty reply to a petitioner and said, “You are dialing the wrong number. This is a good season to protest and raise slogans. You can also do the same.” In fact, a petitioner in the Supreme Court had demanded to rotate the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). On this, the Supreme Court suggested that this issue should be raised with the law makers (MLAs/MPs) instead of the judiciary. The bench said that the matter falls within the scope of the legislature and constitutional authorities, and cannot be resolved through a petition filed under Article 32.
CJI said- muster some courage
“Must gather some courage, raise your voice and say that now is the time for the legislature to take some steps in this direction,” CJI Kant said during the hearing of a petition seeking to rotate seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). He also indicated that this matter is fundamentally related to the decision of the legislature, hence the court cannot interfere in it. Later, a bench of CJI and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the appeal challenging the continuation of reservation for SC/ST constituencies without rotation.
Which petition was heard?
The petitioner argued that many constituencies have been reserved since 1972, and due to lack of rotation, three-four people from the same family have been contesting elections again and again. The petition had sought periodic rotation of reserved constituencies, citing the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission’s 2008 report. The petitioner’s argument was that reserving constituencies for the same community for decades limits voters’ choices and diminishes their right to vote.
‘Can’t play the role of third house’
Justice Bagchi said that reservation of constituencies is a matter which should be considered by the constitutional authorities and the legislature. He said that even though voters have limited options, their fundamental right to vote has not been taken away from them. He told the petitioner’s lawyer, “The options may be limited, but your right to vote remains intact.”
The judge further said that if the court finds clear arbitrariness in any provision, it can strike it down or change its interpretation, but it cannot rewrite the constitutional provisions so as to implement the ‘rotation mechanism’. Justice Bagchi said, “We cannot play the role of the third house of Parliament.”
What was the argument of the petitioner?
The petitioner argued that the same families have been contesting elections from reserved constituencies for decades, thereby limiting the options available to voters. On this, the bench said that voters can raise this issue with their elected representatives and make it an election demand. The CJI suggested that voters can tell their representatives that they will not vote for them unless changes are made in the delimitation and reservation framework.
Also read:
Shock to Rahul Gandhi before Supreme Court march, CJI Surya Kant refuses to meet opposition leaders
SK Sharma is a content writer who writes on news, entertainment, and lifestyle topics. She has over four years of experience and is known for conveying information in simple and clear language.
