Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Rotation of Reservation in Mr Ravindra Nayak vs Karnataka State Election Commission on 14 January, 2019Matching Fragments
3. It is contended that Article 243T of the Constitution of India mandates reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality (as defined under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India) and that these seats should be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. The Guidelines, it is submitted, have been passed consequent to the undertaking by the State of Karnataka to ensure conduct of elections in accordance with reservation and rotation made as per the Guidelines published prior to the election process pursuant to orders passed by this Court in A. Ramdas and others v. State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development and Others reported in ILR 2001 KAR 5354. The said Guidelines specify that they have been framed consequent to the official notification of the population Census of 2011 and guideline No.8 stipulates that there would be reservation and rotation across categories [being Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Caste-Woman [SC(W)], Scheduled Tribe (ST), Scheduled Tribe-Woman [ST(W)], Backward Class 'A' [BC(A)], Backward Class 'A'-Woman [BC(A)(W)], Backward Class 'B' [BC(B)], Backward Class 'B'-Woman [BC(B)(W)], General - Woman [G(W)]. Further, guideline No.10 stipulates that to the extent practicable, repetition of the same category of reservation in a constituency shall be avoided between elections, in addition to various other stipulations and directions concerning the process of reservation and rotation.
10. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the cycle of reservation as specified in the Guidelines and mandated must start from the starting point of the cycle of rotation (referred to as sequence in the Guidelines) after every delimitation, relying on the judgment in Karnataka State Election Commission, Bangalore v. G.Sangappa and Others reported in 2011 (3) Kar.L.J. 32 (DB) and in specific to para 21 which reads as follows:
"21. ...We are, therefore, satisfied, that for implementation of "reservation", as also, "rotation" provided for under Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, the starting point has to be when delimitation is carried out after the culmination of census operations. For the instant case, the year 2005."
1. Ward No.8 is re-numbered as Ward No.9 and there has been a repetition for the terms 2013 and 2018.
As regards Ward No.30 for the term 2013 which was reserved for 'BC(A)(Woman) has been repeated in 2018 and so also as regards Ward No.34 for the category of 'General (Woman)', the reservation has been retained in 2018.
As regards W.P.No.36972/2018, the petitioner states that Ward No.33 has been reserved as regards 'Schedule Caste' category but submits that the population as regards Schedule Caste is less as regards Ward No.32 as compared to other Wards, viz., Ward Nos.11, 19 and 4. However, reservation in Ward No.33 which has been resorted to in the final notification is contrary to the Guidelines which mandates rotation and reservation taking note of proportion of the population of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. Hence, the notification providing for reservation and rotation are sought to be set aside.
What is to be noted in addition, is that as regards elections for the term commencing 2013 with respect to the municipal bodies, the reservation and rotation, and revision of electoral rolls on the basis of census figures of 2011 was taken up before the Apex Court in SLP(civil)Nos.3909-3910/2013 wherein, the Apex Court had granted time to the State to furnish the proposal to the State Election Commission on or before 04.02.2013 as regards rotation of seats meant for reserved categories. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the light of non-furnishing of the reservation and rotation lists within the time prescribed elections were held on the basis of earlier notifications. Hence, the notification prevailing prior had been repeated for the term commencing in 2013. This would be more a reason that repetition of reservation in the same Wards cannot be permitted once again for the term 2019.