NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a petition challenging the continued reservation of certain Assembly constituencies for the Scheduled Castes without rotation, indicating that the question of introducing rotation in the reservation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies was a matter for the legislature to consider, The Bar Bulletin reported. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a Special Leave Petition against an Allahabad High Court judgment which upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.

Source: The Bar Bulletin

The provision requires reserved constituencies to be identified, as far as practicable, in areas where the proportion of the SC/ST population is comparatively large. Counsel for the petitioner argued that some constituencies had remained reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates for several decades without any rotation, restricting voters' choices, and that the rotation principle followed in Panchayat and Municipal elections should also be considered for Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies. Counsel also referred to a Delimitation Commission report that had acknowledged the demand for rotation and recommended the government consider suitable provisions in law, and raised concerns under Article 14, Bar Bulletin reported.

Source: The Bar Bulletin

Justice Bagchi observed that the right to vote does not entitle a voter to insist that a particular constituency be reserved or opened for candidates of a particular category, pointing out that a candidate is not restricted to contesting from only one constituency. 'Your right to vote is not restricted to a particular constituency... There are 543 constituencies to choose from,' the Bench remarked, according to Bar Bulletin. The Bench observed that Articles 330 and 332 do not prescribe a rotational mechanism, unlike Articles 243D and 243T, which provide for rotation in Panchayat and Municipal elections.

Source: The Bar Bulletin

The Allahabad High Court had earlier held that it could not issue a direction to Parliament to amend the law to introduce rotation of reserved constituencies, while acknowledging that rotation could advance political representation of SC/ST candidates from areas where their population is comparatively lower, Bar Bulletin reported. Live Law's report of that June 22, 2026 judgment (Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India) recorded the High Court holding that Articles 330 and 332 confine themselves to the number of seats to be reserved and are silent on the methodology for identifying them, leaving it to Parliament under Article 327, and that no mandamus can be issued to the legislature to insert a rotation provision. Sources: The Bar Bulletin; Live Law; Verdictum.

Source: Live Law