Case at a Glance
The petitioner challenged Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, arguing that seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in State Legislative Assemblies should be rotated, so that 191-Kadipur Assembly Constituency — reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates since its creation — could be de-reserved and another constituency with the highest Scheduled Caste population reserved instead. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected the challenge, holding that although rotation may ideally be followed, the decision lies with the Legislature. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that reservation of seats in State Legislative Assemblies and Parliament “is essentially a matter falling within the domain of the Legislature”, and gave the petitioner liberty to persuade elected representatives to consider rotation.
The petitioner’s writ petition (WC No. 6153 of 2011) before a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenged the vires of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. His case was that reservation of Assembly seats for Scheduled Castes “should be governed by following the principle of rotation”.
He pointed out that 191-Kadipur Assembly Constituency had remained reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates from the date of its creation, and proposed that it be de-reserved and another constituency with the highest Scheduled Caste population be reserved instead. By judgment dated 22 June 2026 the High Court rejected the challenge, holding that although rotation may ideally be followed, the decision falls within the domain of the Legislature. He then filed a special leave petition.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can courts direct rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in State Legislative Assemblies by striking down Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002?
A Policy Choice for the Legislature
After hearing senior counsel for the petitioner, the Bench said it found “no ground to take a view different from that taken by the High Court.” It held that “Reservation of seats in the State Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament is essentially a matter falling within the domain of the Legislature.”
The Court did not, however, shut the door on the idea itself. It gave the petitioner liberty to approach “the elected representatives” and persuade them “to consider adopting the principle of rotation”, relying on observations made by the Delimitation Commission in 2006. The order does not describe what those observations were. The special leave petition was disposed of accordingly.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Supreme Court found no ground to differ from the High Court’s rejection of the challenge to Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.
- Reservation of seats in State Legislative Assemblies and Parliament is essentially a matter within the domain of the Legislature.
- Whether to adopt rotation of reserved seats is a policy decision for the Legislature, not for the courts.
- The petitioner is at liberty to persuade elected representatives to consider rotation, relying on the 2006 Delimitation Commission’s observations.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many constituencies have remained reserved across delimitations; the order confirms that only the Legislature can introduce rotation.
- It leaves the 2002 delimitation framework intact.
- It points those seeking change toward the legislative process.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Voters & Aspiring Candidates
- Reserved status of a constituency cannot be changed through a court order directing rotation.
- Advocacy for rotation should be directed to elected representatives and the legislative process.
- The 2006 Delimitation Commission’s observations may be relied on in such advocacy.
For Counsel
- Challenges to Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act seeking rotation are unlikely to succeed after this order.
- The order treats rotation as desirable-in-principle only in the High Court’s words (‘may ideally be followed’), not as a constitutional requirement.
- Note that this is a short disposal order without detailed constitutional analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Plea for rotation of SC-reserved Assembly seats rejected.
- Challenge to Section 9(1)(c) Delimitation Act, 2002 fails.
- Reservation of seats is a matter for the Legislature.
- Liberty to petition elected representatives on rotation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court uphold Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act?
It found no ground to differ from the Allahabad High Court, which had rejected the challenge to the provision, and disposed of the special leave petition.
Why can’t courts order rotation of reserved seats?
The Court said reservation of seats in State Legislatures and Parliament is essentially a matter within the domain of the Legislature.
What can the petitioner do now?
He may approach elected representatives and try to persuade them to adopt rotation, relying on the Delimitation Commission’s 2006 observations.
Conclusion
The order keeps the reservation of Assembly seats within the legislative sphere, while acknowledging that rotation can still be pursued through elected representatives.
Practical takeaway: Those who want reserved constituencies rotated must pursue the change through the legislature; courts will not direct rotation by striking down the Delimitation Act provision.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com