‘You Dialled the Wrong Number, Go Protest’: CJI’s Sharp Remark to Petitioner Seeking Quota Rotation

‘Wrong Number, Go Protest’: Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Rotation of SC/ST Reserved Constituencies

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant delivered a pointed response to a petitioner seeking periodic rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), suggesting that the demand should be taken up with lawmakers rather than the judiciary.

“You’re dialling the wrong number. This is the good season for protests and naarebaazi (slogans). You can also do that,” the CJI remarked during the hearing.

The observations came as a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal challenging the continued reservation of certain SC/ST constituencies without periodic rotation.

Encouraging the petitioner to raise the issue through democratic channels, the CJI said, “Muster some strength and raise their voice and say that the time is ripe for the legislature to do something.”

The petitioner argued that several constituencies had remained reserved since 1972, allowing the same three or four families to repeatedly contest elections. The plea sought a rotation mechanism to ensure wider electoral participation and greater choice for voters.

It also referred to recommendations in the Delimitation Commission’s 2008 report, arguing that the absence of rotation restricted voters’ options and diluted their electoral rights.

COURT SAYS ROTATION IS A LEGISLATIVE MATTER

Explaining the court’s position, Justice Bagchi observed that the reservation and rotation of constituencies involved decisions falling within the legislature’s domain and the jurisdiction of constitutional authorities.

“The option may be limited, but your right to vote is there,” he told the petitioner’s counsel.

The judge clarified that the Supreme Court could strike down a provision or interpret it differently if it found manifest arbitrariness. However, it could not rewrite constitutional provisions to introduce a new rotation mechanism.

“We cannot play the role of a third chamber of Parliament,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The bench also suggested that voters should approach their elected representatives and make constituency rotation an electoral demand. The CJI indicated that people could put pressure on lawmakers by making electoral support conditional on changes to the existing framework.

WHY THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE PETITION

The appeal challenged Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, questioning why SC/ST-reserved constituencies had not been rotated despite recommendations by the Delimitation Commission.

The petitioner’s counsel also cited the commission’s observations regarding rotation of reserved constituencies in local body elections.

However, the bench maintained that delimitation was a legislative exercise and that the guidelines governing the process did not create an obligation for continuous rotation.

Justice Bagchi further explained that rotation in municipal and panchayat elections was governed by separate legislative provisions.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, which had acknowledged that rotation might be desirable but maintained that the issue was for the legislature to address.

The court left the petitioner free to approach elected representatives and seek implementation of the rotational principle in accordance with the Delimitation Commission’s recommendations.