The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the extended reservation of constituencies may conflict with the harmony envisaged under Art.14 of the Constitution, judicial review of the Delimitation Commission's decision is barred by Art.329(a) as per the precedent set in Meghraj Kothari's case.

K. M. Joseph, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed purportedly invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are residents of Vaikom. They have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the Constitutional scheme of harmonious rotation of reserved constituencies is implicit and required. A writ of mandamus is also sought for by the petitioners to compel the respondents to rotate the reserved constituency for scheduled caste at Vaikom to any other suitable constituency in Kottayam District of Kerala State.

2. It is their case that from 1977 onwards Vaikom is a constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste and it remains so for the last 30 years. Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 1928 of 2008 was being considered for an allotment of a seat to contest by the Indian National Congress, it is alleged, but he is prevented from contesting from Vaikom, his home town, because of the reservation. It is their contention that while reservation of seat for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) was guaranteed under the constitutional process of Arts.15 and 16, the classification of electorate into that as reserved and non reserved into any length of time will not fit in, in the harmony envisaged under Art.14 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the localisation of a reserved constituency for 30 continuous years will be against the constitutional process, arbitrary and illegal.

3. Petitioner in WP (C) No. 4680 of 2008 is a political activist residing in Vaikom. It is stated that there is evidence that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not accepted politically. Very few members of those groups are nominated for non reserved seats and only a tiny number are elected and the continued segregation may promote political expediency, but not political intent, it is stated. It is also stated that Vaikom has a population of 136115 and the scheduled caste population is 24961. The population in Kanjirappally and Changanacherry in Kottayam District is also given and it is stated that these are the three constituencies where the Scheduled Caste population is comparatively larger in Kottayam District. It is further stated that the reservation while being a benefit to those benefited, it is a burden to those situated otherwise. As a rational policy, in the method of appointment and other significant procedures, Government had adopted the process of rotation, so that the burden would be evenly distributed and diffused broadly. Even though the petitioner and others brought the injustice to the notice of the Delimitation Commission, the illegality and injustice is being perpetuated, it is complained.

4. In WP (C) No. 1928 of 2008, a statement has been filed on behalf of the Election Commission of India and the second respondent, namely, the Delimitation Commission. The Commission has justified the continued reservation of scheduled caste constituency in Vaikom. The statement contains reasons why according to them, reservation in Vaikom is continued.

5. We have heard Dr. K. B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Sri. Murali Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission.

6. Dr. K. B. Suresh would contend that Art.14 of the Constitution declares a right to be treated as equal. It is stated that as a practical methodology there should not be any concentration of benefits and concentration of burden. It is therefore, contended that non rotation of reserved constituency in accordance with the provisions of S.9(c) of the Delimitation Act vitiates the notification. It is contended that though the apex Court has spoken in the matter vide its decision in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, AIR 1967 SC 669 : 1967 (1) SCA 267 : 1967 MPLJ 553 : 1967 (2) SCJ 248 : 1967 (1) SCR 400 having regard to the subsequent developments in constitutional law by way of decisions of the apex Co