Supreme Court of India Rejects Reserved Seat Rotation Plea

The Supreme Court of India rejected a petition seeking the mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state legislative assemblies. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant upheld the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which identifies reserved seats based on areas with higher SC/ST populations. The court affirmed a previous judgment from the Allahabad High Court.

Petitioner Jagdish Singh argued that the lack of rotation in the 191-Kadipur Assembly Constituency in Uttar Pradesh violated fundamental rights and allowed a small number of political families to dominate elections. He cited a 2008 report suggesting periodic rotation. The court countered that while rotation might be an ideal arrangement, establishing such a mechanism is a matter of legislative policy for Parliament to decide, not the judiciary.

Chief Justice Surya Kant told the petitioner he was "dialling the wrong number" and suggested that the demand be pursued through political agitation and public appeals to elected representatives. Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that the court cannot act as a "third chamber of Parliament" and argued that in a multiparty democracy, voters typically choose based on political ideology rather than the caste or religion of the representative.