Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Rotate SC/ST Reservations Of Assembly & Parliament Seats

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 4 November 2026

Case: Not stated in source
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Not stated in source
Citation: Not stated in source
Statutes: Delimitation Act — s.9(1)(c)
Source: LiveLaw

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the existing policy regarding the rotation of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations for Assembly and Parliament seats. The Court affirmed the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, observing that the matter falls within the domain of legislative policy.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The rotation of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Assembly and Parliament is a matter of legislative policy, and courts should not interfere with such policy decisions.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates challenging the non-rotation of reserved seats must demonstrate a constitutional or statutory violation, as policy matters are generally outside judicial review. Litigants seeking changes in reservation policy should pursue legislative avenues rather than judicial ones.

Key Legal Takeaways

1The Supreme Court will not intervene in legislative policy decisions concerning the rotation of reserved seats.
2Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, which governs seat reservation, remains valid.
3Changes to the rotation policy for SC/ST reserved seats require legislative action.

The Legal Issue A plea was filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions for the rotation of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Assembly and Parliament constituencies. The petitioners challenged the existing policy, implicitly questioning the non-rotation of these reserved seats and the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act.

Court's Reasoning The Supreme Court rejected the plea, stating that the issue of rotating SC/ST reservations for Assembly and Parliament seats is a matter of legislative policy. The Court observed that it is not within the judiciary's purview to dictate such policy decisions to the legislature. The Court also affirmed the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, which deals with the reservation of seats.

What Follows The Supreme Court's decision means that the current policy regarding the non-rotation of SC/ST reserved seats will continue. Any change to this policy would require legislative action rather than judicial intervention. The petition was dismissed, and no further directions were issued by the Court.