Supreme Court Declines Plea For Mandatory Rotation Of SC/ST Reserved Seats

The Supreme Court on November 4, 2026 rejected a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to interfere with the Allahabad High Court judgment upholding Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.

Jagdish Singh, an elector from the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh, had challenged the continued reservation of his constituency for Scheduled Caste candidates. He said the seat had remained reserved for nearly seven decades without rotation. His petition contended that keeping the same constituencies reserved for decades restricted electoral choice and raised questions of equality and democratic representation.

Under Section 9(1)(c), reserved constituencies are identified in areas where the proportion of SC and ST population is comparatively higher. The petitioner questioned that criteria and argued that periodic rotation would allow candidates from reserved communities to contest from a wider range of constituencies over time. He invoked Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution and said the absence of rotation could benefit a limited number of political families rather than the wider community.

Before the Supreme Court, he also relied on Articles 243D and 243T, which provide for reservation and rotation in Panchayats and Municipalities. He sought a similar arrangement for seats reserved under Articles 330 and 332 in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.