Rotation of Reserved Seats for SC/ST is Directory, Not Mandatory; Reservation Linked to Population Concentration Must Prevail: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“Rotation of SC/ST Reserved Seats in Municipal Wards Not Constitutionally Mandated,, Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi, delivered a significant ruling. The Court allowed the State’s appeal, upholding the reservation notification dated 06.11.2020 for Indore municipal wards, and set aside the Writ Court’s order which had quashed the notification on grounds of non-rotation of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reserved wards.

Holding that the principle of rotation is not mandatory for SC/ST reservations under Article 243T of the Constitution or the applicable State legislation, the Court clarified:

“Rotation of reserved wards is not a constitutional compulsion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but a matter left to legislative discretion. The phrase ‘may be allotted by rotation’ in Article 243T denotes an enabling power, not a mandatory directive.” [Para 29]

The dispute arose after the Indore municipal ward reservation notification reserved certain wards for SC/ST candidates for successive election cycles, allegedly without following the rotation principle under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for SC, ST, OBC and Women) Rules, 1994. The Writ Petitioners claimed such non-rotation perpetuated reservation in select wards, violating Article 243T of the Constitution. The Writ Court agreed and quashed the notification, directing fresh reservation with rotation.

The State Government challenged this, asserting that rotation was not compulsory for SC/ST seats since their reservation is based on population concentration, unlike OBC and women reservations.

Rotation of Reserved Wards:

The primary issue was whether rotation of reserved seats for SC/ST categories is mandatory under the constitutional and statutory framework governing municipal elections.

Justice Rusia, writing for the Bench, held that the expression “may” in Article 243T(1) conferred legislative discretion:

“Article 243T mandates reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population, but the allotment of such seats by rotation is permissive, not obligatory. The term ‘may’ clearly signifies that the application of rotation is left to the discretion of the Legislature and not mandated by the Constitution.” [Para 29]

Distinction Between SC/ST and OBC/Women Reservation:

The Court critically examined Section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and the Reservation Rules, 1994. It observed:

“A clear distinction exists in the statutory scheme: while the allotment of reserved wards for OBC and women categories is expressly mandated to be done by rotation, no such requirement is laid down for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, where reservation depends on demographic concentration.” [Paras 24-30]

Reliance on Population Concentration Principle:

Emphasizing the basis of SC/ST reservation as population concentration, the Court held:

“Rotation in SC/ST wards could result in reserving seats in areas with negligible SC/ST population, undermining the goal of effective representation. The law rightly prefers concentrated representation over mechanical rotation.” [Para 29]

The Court pointed to Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules and Section 11(1) of the 1956 Act, stating:

“Reservation for SC/ST is always aligned with the most concentrated wards, in descending order. This ensures meaningful representation aligned with the social composition of constituencies.” [Para 30]

Supreme Court’s K. Krishna Murthy Judgment Distinguished:

The respondents relied on K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010) 7 SCC 202, claiming rotation is a safeguard against perpetual reservation. The Court rejected this reliance, clarifying:

“The Krishna Murthy judgment is contextually different and does not mandate rotation in all cases. Its observations pertain broadly to reservation policies, not to specific statutory frameworks like the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and the 1994 Rules, where rotation for SC/ST is not prescribed.” [Para 28]

Binding Precedent from Earlier High Court Rulings:

The Bench reaffirmed its earlier Division Bench rulings in Sunil v. State of M.P., 2005 (1) MPLJ 180, and Mohammad Azad v. State of M.P., 2021 (2) MPLJ 479, noting:

“It has been consistently held that rotation applies only to OBC and women seats under Madhya Pradesh law, while SC/ST seats are to be determined solely by concentration of their population.” [Paras 26-27]

Summarising the judgment, the Court stated:

“Rotation of SC/ST reserved seats is not a legal obligation but an administrative choice contingent on demographic realities. The Writ Court’s attempt to mandate rotation by reading ‘may’ as ‘shall’ is constitutionally unsustainable.” [Para 29]

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Writ Court’s order, and restored the validity of the 06.11.2020 reservation notification.

“In view of the above, the impugned order… is hereby set aside, and the writ petition stands dismissed.” [Para 31]

This ruling provides clarity on the non-applicability of rotation in SC/ST municipal reservations in Madhya Pradesh, reaffirming the primacy of proportional demographic representation.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2025