The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to order rotation of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reserved assembly seats, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant telling the petitioner's counsel, "You are dialling the wrong number."
He added that it was the season for dharnas and protests, and that the petitioner could take that route.
The Petition
The plea was filed by Jagdish Singh, an elector of the Kadipur assembly constituency in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, Bar and Bench reported,
-
Indian Markets Turning Corner After Two Tough Years, Says Sandeep Tandon -
NDTV Profit Ignite 2026: Experts See Opportunity In Equities, Stay Bullish For Long-Term -
Buy Right, Sit Tight Does Not Work for Individual Stocks, Says Dinshaw Irani -
'Worst Is Behind': Quant MF Sees Market Bottom, Flags 'Extreme Euphoria' In Midcaps -
India's Mutual Fund Industry Could Become A $1 Trillion Opportunity, Say Fund Managers -
'Foreign Investors Are Baraatis': Raamdeo Agrawal's Take On LTCG Tax -
Stay Invested Through Market Cycles: Raamdeo Agrawal at NDTV Profit Ignite -
Ramesh Damani Remains Bullish On India For Next 20-30 Years, Sees Bargains Amid Market Weakness -
CAS Came After A Long Consultation Process: SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey AT NDTV PROFIT IGNITE -
Aim To Cut FPI Onboarding Time From Mth To Five Days: SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey AT NDTV PROFI
Kadipur is reserved for SC candidates. His counsel told the court it had stayed that way since the first general elections in 1952, which he said limited voters' choice.
He claimed that in 75 years the benefit had gone to only three or four families, though he said the petitioner had nothing against them.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea in June 2026, holding that rotation was for the legislature and could not be ordered by courts. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court.
What The Bench Said
The bench, comprising the CJI and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, did not accept that a grievance about long-running reservation raised a constitutional question.
Justice Bagchi said voters in a multiparty democracy are expected to back a party and its ideology, and that the court cannot assume a majority community votes on caste lines, as per Bar and Bench.
The petitioner's right to vote, he said, is not affected, and his right to contest is not confined to one seat.
Limits Of Judicial Power
Counsel cited Articles 330 and 332, which provide for SC/ST reservation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, and Articles 243D and 243T, which provide for rotation in panchayats and municipalities.
Justice Bagchi noted that Article 332 fixes the number of seats and the ratio to population but does not say how individual seats are picked. Local body polls, he added, sit under a separate constitutional framework.
Rejecting the argument that the lack of rotation was arbitrary under Article 14, he said the court examines only "manifest arbitrariness". Disagreeing with the criteria is not enough to strike down the law.
The bench also declined to read down the provision to introduce rotation. "We cannot rewrite the Constitution or the statute," Justice Bagchi reportedly said. The CJI added: "We cannot play the role of a third chamber of Parliament."
The CJI said the petitioner could argue that Parliament should look at the issue again, but that only the legislature can act on it.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.