Rotation of SC/ST Reserved Seats Is for Parliament, Not Courts, Rules Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Union of India
Case: Jagdish Singh v. Union of India
Date of Judgment: 04 November 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Proceedings: SLP (C) No. 37437 of 2026
Court Observation
“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.”
Summary
The Supreme Court has declined to order mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, holding that introducing such a mechanism falls within Parliament’s legislative domain. The Court declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.
The Court held that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the statute by introducing a rotation requirement that is absent from Articles 330 and 332 and from the Delimitation Act. The petitioner, an elector of the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, was left free to take his demand to elected representatives and build consensus for persuading Parliament to follow the rotation principle.
Key Holdings
- Articles 330 and 332 prescribe only the number of reserved seats in proportion to population and leave the method of identifying them to Parliament under Article 327.
- Courts cannot direct Parliament to introduce a rotation system for reserved constituencies, even if rotation may ideally be followed.
- A demand for rotation of reserved seats must be pursued before elected representatives, not through a judicial direction.
Background
Jagdish Singh, an elector of the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, filed a petition seeking mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Allahabad High Court, by its judgment of 22 June 2026, dismissed the petition, holding that the existing provision was constitutionally valid and that courts could not direct Parliament to introduce rotation. The Supreme Court has now declined to interfere with that judgment.
Related Articles
- Women’s Reservation Bill 2023
- Not Essential Criterion For Election: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea Against BJP MLA For Allegedly Falsifying Educational Qualifications
- Apology Cannot Substitute for Due Care in Preventive Detention, Rules Supreme Court
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
