Supreme Court says it cannot interfere in criteria for SC/ST reserved constituencies

The Indian ExpressIndependentCenterNov 4

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition filed by a voter from Uttar Pradesh who sought mandatory rotation of parliamentary and assembly seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court ruled that determining the reservation framework is a legislative matter for Parliament rather than a judicial issue. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that the petitioner was dialing the wrong number, while Justice Manoj Kumar Mehta noted that voters in a multi-party democracy typically choose based on party loyalty rather than caste identity. The petitioner had argued that keeping specific constituencies reserved for decades violated constitutional equality provisions and benefited only a small segment of the community. This decision follows a similar rejection by the Allahabad High Court, which acknowledged that seat rotation might be ideal but deemed it outside the scope of judicial intervention.

Bias read (Center): The report neutrally presents the court's legal reasoning and quotes both the petitioner's arguments and the judges' dismissive remarks without adopting a partisan stance.

Times of IndiaIndependentCenterNov 4

The Supreme Court of India ruled that it lacks the authority to intervene in the criteria used by the legislature to reserve assembly or parliamentary constituencies for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). In a decision regarding a petition challenging the reservation of the Kadipur assembly seat in Uttar Pradesh, the bench stated that identifying such constituencies is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature and that the judiciary cannot act as a third chamber of Parliament. The court rejected arguments that the Delimitation Act allows for permanent reservations without rotation, emphasizing that delimitation is a legislative exercise whose guidelines cannot be altered by judicial mandates. While acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns about geographic identification and the lack of a rotational reservation mechanism, the justices advised the petitioner to pursue political remedies, such as protests, rather than seeking legal intervention. This ruling upholds the lower court’s view that general candidates do not possess a fundamental right to contest elections in seats specifically reserved for SCs and STs under the Constitution.

Bias read (Center): The report neutrally presents the court's legal reasoning and direct quotes without injecting editorial opinion or favoring either the petitioner or the state.