The Supreme Court refused a plea seeking mandatory rotation of SC- and ST-reserved constituencies. It held that any such policy change must be considered by Parliament rather than courts.Stock photo used for illustrationNewdelhi,Nov 4, 2026 15:52 ISTThe Supreme Court has refused to consider a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state assemblies, ruling that the issue falls within the legislature's domain and cannot be decided by courts, news agency Press Trust of India reported.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court judgment upholding Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.
The provision allows reserved constituencies to be identified in areas with a comparatively higher proportion of SC and ST residents.According to PTI, petitioner Jagdish Singh, a voter from the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh's Sultanpur district, had challenged its continued reservation for Scheduled Castes. He claimed that the constituency had remained reserved for nearly seven decades since its creation.Singh argued that the absence of a rotation mechanism violated Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution.
He said it restricted voters' electoral choices by limiting the candidates they could elect to members of the SC community. He also claimed that the existing arrangement benefited a limited number of political families instead of advancing the interests of the wider community.The plea sought a system similar to the rotational reservation provided for panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution.
It urged the bench to direct periodic rotation of constituencies reserved for SCs and STs. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi said voters in a multiparty democracy were expected to make electoral choices based on political ideologies rather than caste or religion.“In a political democracy, there are multiple political parties having different ideologies.
The voters are expected to vote for the party, not for the religion. You may like or dislike a particular political ideology.
Who is representing that ideology becomes irrelevant. You vote for that ideology.
So that also defeats your argument,” Justice Bagchi said, according to PTI.The bench also distinguished between the right to vote and any claimed right to contest an election from a particular constituency. It observed that general-category candidates remained eligible to contest from constituencies that were not reserved.The Chief Justice said the petitioner had approached the wrong forum to seek a policy change and that the demand for rotation should be raised with Parliament.
In a lighter vein, he said the petitioner could also pursue the issue through public protests and demonstrations.“The challenge to Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act has been turned down in the impugned judgment. The case of the petitioner is that the Assembly seats should be reserved on rotational basis for members of ST and SC communities as in municipal corporations,” the bench said in its order.“The High Court has turned down the case observing that although ideally rotation ought to be followed, such a recourse cannot be directed by the court and it is in the ambit of the Parliament.
We see no ground to take a different view,” it added.The Supreme Court, therefore, declined to order the rotation of SC- and ST-reserved constituencies, but said the petitioner was free to approach public representatives and persuade them to adopt the principle.- Ends