A petition demanding rotation of reserved seats was heard in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. CJI Surya Kant asked the petitioner why he was not protesting instead of the court. He said in a light tone, “You are dialing the wrong number. This is the period of demonstration and agitation. Perhaps you should also do the same.” The petition sought to implement mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Parliament and state legislatures. The Supreme Court refused to interfere in this matter. The petitioner’s lawyer said that he had no intention of protesting. He also told that he had a sore throat. Jagdish Singh is a voter of 191-Kadipur assembly seat in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. He had challenged the continuous reservation of this seat for SC since the first election in 1952. He said that only four or five families have benefited from this. He sought to at least direct the officials to consider implementing rotation in the reservation of assembly seats. The system of rotation for reserved seats is already in place in Panchayat and municipal elections. The petitioner demanded to implement such a system for assembly seats also. He said that not having a system of rotation violates Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution. This limits the electoral options of voters. According to the petitioner, voters can elect only among candidates from the SC community. On this basis he challenged the existing provision of reserved seats. Refusal to accept voting on the basis of caste. The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said that it is not right to accept voting on the basis of caste. Justice Bagchi said, “This argument is based on the assumption that the majority community will vote on the basis of caste or community. This is not necessary.” He said that the court cannot make judicial pronouncements on democratic decisions. This decision has to be taken by the voters. Justice Bagchi said that reservation of a seat does not affect a person’s right to vote. “Your right to vote remains intact. You are free to vote for any candidate from any community,” he said. He further said, “Saying that you cannot vote for a candidate from your community cannot be considered a valid argument.” Justice Bagchi also said that the right to contest elections is not limited to just one seat. A person can contest elections from other non-reserved seats. Do not vote on the basis of religion and caste. Justice Bagchi said that in a multi-party democracy, voters are expected to vote on the basis of political parties and their ideology. “Voters are expected to vote for the party and its ideology, not on the basis of religion,” he said. He said that a person can support or oppose any ideology. The identity of the person representing that ideology is no longer important. The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the petition seeking implementation of rotation system for reserved seats. The bench said that Article 332 of the Constitution provides for reservation of seats for SCs and STs. Which seats will be reserved is a different matter. The court said that mere disagreement with the criteria adopted for reserving a seat does not make the entire process unconstitutional. The role of the court is to see whether there is any clear or obvious arbitrariness in the process. Justice Bagchi said that it is for the legislature to assess whether long-term reservation increases the feeling of caste-based division in the society or not. He said that no existing law can be declared unconstitutional on this basis alone. The court said – the Constitution cannot be rewritten. The petitioner’s lawyer cited Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution. There is a provision for reservation and rotation in Panchayats and municipal bodies in these articles. Justice Bagchi said that there is a separate provision for local body elections in the Constitution. The court cannot rewrite constitutional provisions. When the lawyer sought a different interpretation of the law to implement the rotation system on assembly seats also, Justice Bagchi said, “We cannot play the role of the third house of Parliament.” After this CJI Surya Kant again said, “You are dialing the wrong number. This is a period of demonstration and agitation. Perhaps you should also do the same.” The lawyer apologized and said that he had no intention of protesting. He said he had a sore throat. To this, CJI Surya Kant said, “You can certainly raise your voice and say that the time has come for Parliament to reconsider this issue. But only the legislature can take this decision.”
Source link
[ad_3]
सुप्रीम कोर्ट बोला- गलत नंबर डायल कर रहे, प्रदर्शन करें: लोकसभा-राज्यसभा की आरक्षित सीटों के रोटेशन वाली याचिका पर दखल से इनकार
