Supreme Court Refuses to Alter SC/ST Seat Delimitation Norms

• by Akanksha Mishra
• 2026-11-05 13:30:00

Reaffirming the constitutional boundaries separating judicial review from legislative authority, the Supreme Court of India categorically refused on Wednesday to intervene in the criteria governing the reservation of Assembly or Parliamentary constituencies for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana dismissed a petition challenging the continuous reservation of the Kadipur Assembly seat in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that the judiciary cannot usurp parliamentary prerogatives or transform itself into a "third house of Parliament."

Constituency Allocation Remains Exclusive Domain of the Legislature

The apex court established that the formula, selection, and scheduling of reserved constituencies are anchored strictly within statutory legislative mandates. Declining to quash the notification concerning the Kadipur seat, the bench observed that the determination of whether a constituency stays reserved or follows a rotational schedule lies purely with lawmakers and the Delimitation Commission. Addressing the petitioners' grievances regarding the prolonged lack of rotation, the bench noted in a conversational vein that approaching a constitutional court for policy alterations was essentially dialing the wrong number, pointing out that citizens seeking electoral reforms should direct their demands to elected representatives rather than seeking judicial intervention.

Section 9(1)(c) of Delimitation Act and the Question of Rotational Reservation

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner questioned whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, could operate constitutionally if a single constituency remains reserved for Scheduled Castes over multiple successive election cycles without a statutory rotation mechanism. Responding to the contention, the bench clarified that delimitation constitutes an intricate sovereign legislative procedure, and courts possess no constitutional mandate to rewrite statutory guidelines or mandate alternative reservation formulas. The Supreme Court fully upheld the precedent established by the Allahabad High Court, which ruled that under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, affirmative seat reservation remains valid, and general category aspirants cannot assert a breach of fundamental rights simply because a constituency is lawfully notified for SC or ST representation.

Previous Post

India's major success, DRDO successfully tests hypersonic missile technology

Next Post

Cabinet Grants 5-Year Extension to Fast Track Courts, Expands Network to 850 for Rape & POCSO Trials