High Court Overturns Haryana Government's Reduction of SC Reserved Seats in Panchkula
In a landmark judicial ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has invalidated a contentious notification issued by the Haryana government that sought to diminish the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) within the Panchkula Municipal Corporation. The court's decision underscores a firm commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring equitable representation for marginalized communities in local governance.
Constitutional Violation Cited in Seat Reduction
A division bench, comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, delivered a decisive verdict, setting aside the state's directive that aimed to reduce SC reserved seats from four to three. The bench unequivocally declared this reduction as unconstitutional, highlighting that it deviated from the mandatory provisions outlined in Articles 243P(g) and 243T of the Indian Constitution. These articles explicitly require that such reservations be determined solely based on the most recent Census data, which in this instance is the 2011 Census.
The court's scrutiny revealed a glaring inconsistency in the government's methodology. While the state relied on the Family Information Data Repository (FIDR) to fix the total number of seats—maintaining figures unchanged from the 2011 Census—it simultaneously applied only the 2011 Census data to ascertain the SC population for the purpose of reducing reserved seats. This dual approach, the bench noted, creates a paradoxical scenario where the total voter count for Scheduled Castes is derived from FIDR, yet their reservation is anchored to outdated census figures.
Petition Highlights Legal Flaws in Government Action
The court's ruling came in response to a petition filed by Usha Rani and other concerned citizens, who challenged the Haryana government's notification dated September 4, 2025. This notification had abruptly reduced the SC reserved seats from four in previous elections to three for the upcoming Panchkula municipal corporation polls, allegedly in violation of constitutional mandates and Section 6 of The Haryana Municipal Corporation Act.
The petitioners argued that the reduction was improperly based on an on-the-spot population survey conducted through the FIDR, rather than adhering to the legally required 2011 Census data. They contended that the FIDR, being a voluntary scheme designed to facilitate access to government welfare benefits, cannot supplant the Census—a statutory process mandated by the Constitution for electoral determinations.
"The FIDR was a voluntary scheme to obtain various benefits under government welfare schemes, and it could not have replaced the Census, which is a product of Articles 243P(g) and 243T of the Constitution and is mandatory before any election process," the petitioners asserted, highlighting the legal misstep.Court Mandates Strict Adherence to Census Data
After thorough hearings involving all parties, the High Court firmly held that any redistribution of seats must be exclusively based on the 2011 Census, with population counts strictly aligned to that data. The bench clarified that alternative mechanisms, such as the Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act 2021, cannot be considered for determining the SC population in electoral contexts.
"The Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act 2021 could not have been considered at all for the purposes of determining the population of people belonging to the Scheduled Castes, and it had to be done strictly following the mandate of Articles 243P(g) and 243T of the Constitution," the court stated, reinforcing the primacy of constitutional provisions over state-level initiatives.
This ruling not only rectifies an immediate injustice but also sets a crucial precedent for future electoral processes, ensuring that reservations for Scheduled Castes are calculated with transparency and in strict compliance with constitutional directives. It reaffirms the judiciary's role as a guardian of democratic values and social justice, particularly in safeguarding the rights of historically disadvantaged groups within India's governance framework.
