Reservation of Assembly Seats for the Legislature: SC

Reservation of Assembly Seats Essentially for the Legislature: Supreme Court Leaves Rotation Plea to Elected Representatives

Published: 4 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

The Supreme Court found no ground to differ from the Allahabad High Court, which had turned down Jagdish Singh's challenge to the vires of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 in his plea for rotation of Assembly seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Calling reservation of seats in the State Legislative Assemblies and Parliament essentially a matter for the Legislature, it disposed of his special leave petition with liberty to approach elected representatives (paras 2, 4-5).

Key holdings

The Court found no ground to differ from the High Court, which had turned down a challenge to the vires of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (paras 2, 4).

Reservation of seats in State Legislative Assemblies and Parliament is essentially a matter within the domain of the Legislature (para 4).

The petitioner may approach elected representatives to persuade them to consider rotation, relying on the Delimitation Commission's 2006 observations (para 4).

The order gives no separate reasons on the vires of Section 9(1)(c); it rests on the High Court's view (paras 3-4).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Jagdish Singh challenged the vires of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 in WC No. 6153/2011 before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). His case was that the reservation of State Legislative Assembly seats for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes should follow the principle of rotation. The 191-Kadipur Assembly Constituency, he said, has stayed reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates since its creation and after the 2006 delimitation exercise; with rotation it could be de-reserved and another constituency with the highest Scheduled Caste population reserved (para 3). On 22.06.2026 a Division Bench turned down the challenge (para 2), observing that although rotation may ideally be followed, undertaking such an exercise falls within the domain of the Legislature (para 3).

Court's Findings

Having heard the petitioner's side (para 1), the Court found ‘no ground to take a view different from that taken by the High Court’ (para 4). It stated that reservation of seats in the State Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament ‘is essentially a matter falling within the domain of the Legislature’ (para 4). It left the petitioner free, if so advised, to approach the elected representatives to persuade them to consider adopting the principle of rotation, which he had relied on by pointing to observations of the Delimitation Commission in 2006 (para 4). With that liberty, the special leave petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications (para 5). The order gives no separate reasons on Section 9(1)(c), does not set out the Delimitation Commission's observations, cites no constitutional provision or decision, and records no appearance for the respondents.

Legal Principle

The order lays down no new rule. Declining to differ from the High Court, the Court treated the reservation of seats in State Legislative Assemblies and Parliament as essentially a matter within the domain of the Legislature, and pointed a petitioner seeking rotation of a reserved constituency to the elected representatives (paras 4-5).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order indicates that the Supreme Court will not, on such a plea, itself reorder which Assembly constituencies are reserved. The petitioner's grievance was that one seat had stayed reserved since its creation; the Supreme Court gave no separate reasons on Section 9(1)(c) but agreed that reservation of legislative seats is essentially for the Legislature, and pointed him to elected representatives (para 4). A case for rotation of reserved Assembly seats may therefore have to be made to lawmakers, using material such as the Delimitation Commission's 2006 observations he relied on. Compare Satish Kumar Sharma, a Rajasthan High Court ruling of 01.10.2026 on rotation of reserved seats in Panchayat elections.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.