Elections | Reservation Of Seats In Constituencies With Comparatively Larger SC/ST Population Is Constitutional: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 which provides for locating constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large. It held that a voter cannot claim that his right to vote is violated merely because his constituency has remained reserved for the Scheduled Castes for decades.The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,“The right to vote does not imply that a voter can dictate the terms of allotment of a constituency or insist that a constituency be allotted to candidates of a particular category. The right to vote of every citizen in an election, whether to the Lok Sabha or Legislative Assembly is recognized under Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution subject to the limitations prescribed by or under the Constitution.”Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution provide for reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of the States in proportion to their population. The Court observed that both provisions confine themselves to the number of seats to be reserved and are silent on the methodology for identifying which seats are to be reserved, leaving it open to Parliament to provide for the same by legislation.Petitioner, an elector of 191-Kadipur Assembly Constituency of District Sultanpur, challenged the notification dated 18.12.2006 notifying the constituency for the Scheduled Castes and the vires of the part of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. He also sought a direction to consider his representation dated 09.09.2006 and to declare Kadipur a general constituency. He pleaded that the seat had stood reserved for the Scheduled Castes for almost six decades since its creation, compelling him to cast a “caste-bonded vote” in favour of only Scheduled Caste candidates for generations.It was argued that Articles 330 and 332 mandate the number of seats to be reserved but nowhere provide that seats with comparatively large SC/ST population are to be reserved always. It was contended that Section 9(1)(c) results in stagnation, with a constituency once reserved remaining reserved indefinitely without the principle of rotation followed in Panchayat and Municipal elections under Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution, and is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19.Counsel for the petitioner referred to the Constituent Assembly debates, where a proposal that reserved constituencies should comprise areas where the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were comparatively more was negated. The Election Commission of India raised a preliminary objection that the petition was barred by Article 329(a) of the Constitution, which prohibits the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats from being called in question in any court. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission, it was submitted that orders of the Delimitation Commission published in the Gazette have the effect of law and cannot be questioned. It was further submitted that the petition suffered from delay and laches, and that rotation of reserved constituencies was a policy matter for which a writ of mandamus was not maintainable.Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India and Ors., the Court rejected the preliminary objection and held the petition maintainable as it challenged the vires of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act. It observed that Article 329 cannot be construed to completely debar citizens from pleading their grievance where interpretation of constitutional provisions is required for facilitating elections or where a case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out.The Court held that since Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India do not provide any methodology for identification of reserved seats, and Parliament, in exercise of its power under Article 327, could provide the methodology in Section 9(1)(c) of the Act.“Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India do not contain any prohibition against the provisions contained in Section 9 (1)(c) of the Act, 2002, which provide for reservation of seats for SC/ST candidates in those areas where the SC/ST population is comparatively large. Hence, it cannot be said that such a provision is violative of any constitutional provision.”Rejecting the argument that reservation of seats curtails the right of a general category candidate to contest, the Court held that such a right cannot override the constitutional scheme envisaged under Articles 330 and 332. It held that the claim of the petitioner that his right to vote was adversely affected by continuing reservation of his constituency was misconceived, as the right to vote is a...

Elections | Reservation Of Seats In Constituencies With Comparatively Larger SC/ST Population Is Constitutional: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Elections | Reservation Of Seats In Constituencies With Comparatively Larger SC/ST Population Is Constitutional: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers