Rotational Reservation For Assemblies Lies Within Legislative Domain: Allahabad High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 9(1)(c) Of Delimitation Act

The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, has observed that the court cannot issue any direction so as to compel the State for providing roster in reservation for SC/ST in Assembly/Parliamentary constituencies, as it is for the Parliament to ponder on the issue.

The Court held that a statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional unless it can be held that the appropriate Legislature does not have the competence to make the law or that it violates any of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.

The Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed, "we are of the view that where the populations of SC/ST are comparatively larger, then in such constituency a SC/ST candidate by virtue of its large population can itself get elected without the aid of reservation. The goals of social justice, political justice and equality as provided in our Constitution can only be achieved by rotation of seats enabling the SC/ST candidates to get elected even from those seats where their population is comparatively much low to the overall population of the constituency. It is for the parliament to ponder on the issue and legislate as per its wisdom and this court cannot issue any direction so as to compel the State for providing roster in reservation for SC/ST in Assembly/Parliamentary constituencies in view of the settled principles of law as discussed hereinabove."

Advocate Ajay Pratap Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate O.P. Srivastava and Advocate Raj Kumar Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a resident and elector of the Kadipur Assembly Constituency in District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, preferred a writ petition challenging the continued reservation of his constituency for the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner asserted that the seat had remained continuously reserved for nearly six decades, which legally restricted him from voting for a general category candidate of his choice due to the embargo under Section 5(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned notification that notified the constituency for the Scheduled Caste, and further prayed to declare a portion of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Contentions of the Parties

It was contended that the petitioner was compelled to cast a caste-bonded vote for generations, which was highly discriminatory and violative of the Fundamental Right to Equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that while Article 332 of the Constitution mandated the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it nowhere mandated that constituencies with a comparatively large population of such categories must always remain reserved without applying the principle of rotation. It was argued that Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, led to permanent stagnation and indefinite reservation of a single constituency, which directly conflicted with the Preamble's objective of securing social, economic, and political justice.

Per contra, a preliminary objection was raised by the Respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the bar under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits challenging laws relating to the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats in any court. It was contended that orders passed by the Delimitation Commission and published in the Gazette of India possessed the force of law and could not be called into question. It was further submitted that the incorporation of a rotational principle in allocating reserved seats fell entirely within the realm of policy matters, and a writ of mandamus could not be issued when the Constitution itself did not provide for rotation in State Assembly or Parliamentary seats.

Observations of the Court

The Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, observing that judicial review under Article 226 was permissible to check the validity of the Delimitation Commission's orders on the touchstone of the Constitution, especially when the vires of a statutory provision was under challenge.

The Court raised two issues, firstly, whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Act, 2002 is ultra vires on the ground that it provides for allotment of constituencies for the reserved category in those areas where the proportion of their population is comparatively large without providing for rotation, resulting in stagnation of a particular seat remaining reserved for the reserved category for all times to come, thereby being violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India.

Secondly, whether, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can issue directions for providing reservation on the basis of rotation in the constituencies for the Legislative Assembly by issuing a writ of mandamus for inserting such a provision in the Act, 2002.

On merits, the Court observed that Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution were silent on the exact methodology for identifying reserved seats and did not mandate a rotational system for the Lok Sabha or State Assemblies, unlike the express provisions available for Panchayats and Municipalities.

The Court held that the right to vote or contest an election was a constitutional right subject to the limitations prescribed by law, and a citizen could not legitimately complain that their rights were hampered merely because a constituency stood reserved in harmony with the constitutional scheme.

The Court reiterated the settled position of law that a statute could not be declared unconstitutional merely on the ground of being "arbitrary" unless it lacked legislative competence or violated specific fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.

The Court observed, "The provisions of Section 9(1)(c) neither violate the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution nor violates any constitutional provisions. Further, as Article 330 and 332 of the Constitution do not provide any methodology for reservation, leaving it open to the Parliament to make appropriate measures through legislation, the same has been done by the enactment of Act, 2002, which provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the basis of areas where the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is comparatively large."

The Court noted that directing the legislature to adopt a population-based roster or a rotational principle fell exclusively within the legislative domain of the Parliament, and the judiciary could not reframe, rewrite, or mandate legislation without crossing the fine line separating adjudication from legislation.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it to the wisdom of the Parliament to ponder over the issue of rotation of seats to achieve the broader goals of social and political justice.

Cause Title: Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LKO:41628-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Pratap Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh, Surya Bhan Singh

Respondents: Senior Advocate O.P. Srivastava, Standing Counsel Akhilesh Srivastava, Chief Standing Counsel C.S.C., Advocate Anupriya Srivastava, Advocate S B Pandey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment