India
Supreme Court Declines to Mandate Rotation of SC/ST Reserved Seats
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state assemblies is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, told petitioner Jagdish Singh that he was "dialling the wrong number" and advised him to seek consensus through elected representatives.
The court upheld the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which requires reserved constituencies to be identified in areas where the proportion of SC/ST residents is comparatively large. The provision does not mandate periodic rotation of such constituencies. The bench noted that whether identifying reserved constituencies on the basis of a higher concentration of SC/ST residents perpetuates caste divisions is a question for the legislature and cannot render the existing law unconstitutional.
Singh, an elector of the 191-Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur district, which has been reserved for SC candidates for nearly seven decades, argued that the lack of rotation violated Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution and restricted voters to choosing only SC candidates. He sought a rotation mechanism similar to those for panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T.
During the hearing, the court questioned the premise that concentrating reserved constituencies in areas with a larger SC/ST population entrenched caste divisions, noting that voters in a multiparty democracy are expected to choose representatives based on political ideology rather than caste or religion. The court also distinguished between the right to vote and any claimed right to contest elections from a particular constituency, pointing out that general‑category candidates remain free to contest from unreserved seats.
The bench reiterated that it could not introduce a rotation requirement into the constitutional and statutory framework, as neither Articles 330 and 332 nor the Delimitation Act prescribe such a mechanism. It allowed Singh to approach public representatives to build consensus around the rotation principle.
The article was written by Utkarsh Anand, National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding rotation of SC/ST reserved seats?
The Court ruled that mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for SCs and STs is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary, and upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act.
Who were the judges on the bench that delivered the decision?
The bench was headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
What was the petitioner’s argument and what did the Court say about it?
Petitioner Jagdish Singh argued that lack of rotation violated Articles 14, 15, and 19 and restricted voters to SC candidates. The Court said the issue is for the legislature and that the existing law is not unconstitutional.