Rotation Of Reserved Seats In Municipal Wards Mandatory & Not Discretionary: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Justice Subodh Abhayakar was essentially dealing with a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners against the gazetted notification issued by the state government dated 06.11.2020, publishing the list of Reserved Wards in Indore Municipal Area.

The Petitioners sought to quash the impugned order stating that it is against the due process laid out by provisions under Article 243-T of the Constitution, read with Section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (1956 Act), and Rule 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women) Rules, 1994 (the Reservation Rules, 1994).

As per the Petitioners, the District Collector, Indore, erroneously failed in adopting the rotation system by assigning the thirteen municipal wards, previously reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, again to the same category for the upcoming Indore Municipal Elections. This, they claimed, was in clear violation of the mandate under Article 243-T of the Constitution, read with Section 11 of the Act of 1956, along with Rule 3 and 4 of the Reservation Rules, 1994.

Referring to the observations of the Supreme Court in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., the Petitioners claimed that the Rotation System provides rationality in the process of free and fair elections as well as in implementing the constitutional thought of reservation. Consequently, they prayed for impugned notification to be quashed with directions to the Respondents to conduct the whole process afresh by adhering to the rotation policy laid down by the Constitution, as also the Act of 1956 and Reservation Rules of 1994.

The state government, in its reply, submitted that although Article 243-T reflects the intent of reservation of seats for different categories in the Municipal Elections, the rotation policy with the respect to the same has, per se, been left at the discretion of the state governments. The use of the word 'may', preserves the discretionary domain with the state government and is, therefore, only an enabling provision under Article 243-T of the Constitution, it was argued.

With regards to provisions under Section 11 of the Act of 1956, read with Rule 3 and 4 of the Reservation Rules, 1994, the government argued that they do not provide for rotation of seats by lot, which were reserved in the preceding election for SC and ST categories.

It was further submitted that the application of rotation system to the SC and ST seats would be contrary to the intention for which the seats are reserved on the basis of population of the SC and ST categories.

The government relied on the decision rendered by a division bench of the court in Tulsi Ram Jatav v. Union of India & Ors. wherein the plea of reservation of seats by way of rotation in the Municipal Elections was rejected. The government, thus, argued that that no interference is called for in the election process for reservation concluded by the respondent authority, as the same has been carried out within the bounds of law.

Findings

Perusing the submissions of the parties, the court observed that contrary to the stance taken by the state government, a combined reading of Section 11 of the Act of 1956 with Rule 3 and 4 of the Reservation Rules, 1994 categorically reflects the provision for rotation of different seats, which is in line with Article 243-T of the Constitution.

It further noted that the discretionary domain of the state government under Article 243-T is restricted by the provisions laid out under Section 11(2) of the Act, and also Rule 3 and 4 of the Reservation Rules, 1994. It stated that-

"… so far as the State's stand is concerned, they have referred to the use of word "may be allotted by the rotation to different constituencies in a municipality" in Article 243-T and according to them, the use of word 'may' gives a discretion to the State Government or the municipalities to either to adhere to the rotation, as prescribed under Article 243-T of the Constitution of India or it can also be done away with. In contrast to the aforesaid submissions, when we see Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1956, it clearly provides that "and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in such manner, as may be prescribed". It may be argued that it (Section 11(2)) refers to other backwards classes only, but in the considered opinion of this court there appears to be no justification in providing rotation for the seats reserved for OBC category only to the exclusion of SC/ST categories. Thus, reading the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1956 in harmony with Art. 243-T of the Constitution, it reflects that rotation of reserved seats is for all the categories viz. SC/ST as also for OBC.

Similarly, Rule 3 of the Reservation Rules of 1994 also provides that "and such wards shall be those in a descending order in which the population of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, is most concentrated". Similarly, in Rule 4 which refers to reservation of wards at the time of subsequent elections, it is clearly provided that for the purpose of subsequent election, the same procedure of reservation shall be adopted, which is described in Rule 2 (3) of the first time reservation, "Provided that the reservations to be made by lot for the purpose of rotation, the wards which are earlier reserved for a category, shall not be included in the lot for the reservation of that category, until such ward does not come again in the serial of reservation."."

The court reiterated the rationale of the K.K. Krishna Murthy case, wherein the apex court while scrutinizing the provisions under Article 243-T of the Constitution, noted that the rotational policy is a safeguard against the possibility of a particular office being reserved in perpetuity. Axiomatically, the ruling being that of the Supreme Court, the same was to prevail over the ruling in Tulsi Ram Jatav case. The court also noted the observations made by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein, while acknowledging the viewpoint of the Supreme Court in K.K. Krishna Murthy case, it had observed that "The object of the principle of rotation is to ensure that no community or reserved category can lay a claim to a reserved seat in perpetuity."

Allowing the Petition, the court quashed the impugned notification, granting liberty to the state government to formulate and issue the policy of rotation of seats in consonance with Article 243-T of the Constitution of India-

"… in the light of the constitutional mandate, and the State enactments, viz. Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules of 1994, as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and others v. Union of India and another (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned gazette notification regarding the allotment of seat cannot be sustained in the eyes of law; and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed."

Case Title: Jayesh Gurnani v. Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission & Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 3

Click Here To Read/Download Order