The Allahabad High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, rejecting a challenge to the long-standing reservation of an Assembly constituency for the Scheduled Caste category. While observing that concerns about the absence of rotation in reserved constituencies deserve legislative consideration, the Court made it clear that such policy decisions fall within Parliament's domain and cannot be directed through judicial orders.
Background of the Case
The petitioner questioned the continued reservation of the Kadipur Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh for the Scheduled Caste category for several decades. It was argued that the absence of a rotation system prevented voters from electing general category candidates and violated constitutional guarantees of equality.
The petition also challenged the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which provides that reserved constituencies should, as far as practicable, be located in areas where the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe population is comparatively larger. The petitioner sought a declaration that the provision was unconstitutional and requested directions for introducing a rotational system similar to that followed in Panchayat and Municipal elections.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai first held that the writ petition was maintainable because it involved a constitutional challenge to a statutory provision. However, after examining the merits, the Court found no constitutional infirmity in Section 9(1)(c).
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Bench observed, “Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution do not provide any methodology for reservation,” leaving Parliament free to prescribe an appropriate mechanism through legislation. It held that reserving constituencies where the SC/ST population is comparatively larger does not violate the Constitution.
Rejecting the argument that continuous reservation infringes voting rights, the Court said the constitutional right to vote and contest elections operates subject to the constitutional framework governing reservation. It further held that courts cannot invalidate legislation merely because an alternative policy may appear preferable.
At the same time, the Bench noted that the objectives of social and political justice could be better served through rotation of reserved constituencies, enabling SC/ST candidates to contest from areas where their population is comparatively lower. However, it clarified that deciding whether such a system should be adopted is exclusively for Parliament.
The Court observed,
“It is for the Parliament to ponder on the issue and legislate as per its wisdom and this court cannot issue any direction…”
Decision
Holding that Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 neither exceeds Parliament's legislative competence nor violates any constitutional provision, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Bench also declined to issue any direction for introducing a rotational reservation system for Assembly or Parliamentary constituencies, stating that such legislative choices lie outside the scope of judicial review.
Case Details
Case Title: Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner & Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 6153 of 2011
Judge: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Decision Date: 22 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
