Politics · India · 4 hrs ago
Supreme Court Says It Cannot Change Rules for Reserved Constituencies
The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to reserving Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh for Scheduled Castes.
The petitioner argued that the same constituencies can remain reserved across elections without a system to rotate them.
The court said deciding which constituencies are reserved is the legislature’s role, not the judiciary’s.
India’s Constitution provides for reserved assembly and parliamentary seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The court said it could not require a rotational reservation policy or change the rules used to draw constituencies.
It suggested the petitioner could urge elected representatives to revise the criteria, including through protests.
The Supreme Court said it could not change the rules for reserving assembly or parliamentary constituencies for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
The court refused to hear a petition challenging the reservation of the Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh for Scheduled Castes.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said identifying reserved constituencies was the legislature’s prerogative.
The petitioner argued that the same constituencies could remain reserved across successive election cycles without rotation.
The bench said the petitioner could instead urge elected representatives to revise the criteria.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, and a petitioner represented by senior advocate Gagan Gupta.
- What
- The court refused to hear a petition challenging the reservation of Kadipur assembly constituency for Scheduled Castes.
- When
- Wednesday; the article was published on November 4, 2026.
- Where
- New Delhi. The constituency is in Uttar Pradesh.
- Why
- The court said identifying reserved constituencies was the legislature’s prerogative and that courts could not change the delimitation guidelines.
The petitioner
The Supreme Court
Reservation criteria
The petitioner
The petitioner questioned whether the same constituencies could remain reserved for Scheduled Castes across successive electoral cycles without periodic rotation.
The Supreme Court
The court said it could not interfere with legislative criteria for identifying reserved constituencies.
Court's role
The petitioner
The petitioner asked whether the delimitation law could allow the same constituencies to remain reserved without rotation.
The Supreme Court
The court said delimitation is a legislative exercise and courts cannot mandate a rotational reservation policy.
This story does not have a timeline yet.
- Constituency
- Kadipur assembly constituency, Uttar Pradesh
- Reservation
- Scheduled Castes
- Petitioner’s counsel
- Gagan Gupta, senior advocate
- Law cited
- Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002
- Court bench
- Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana
What people are saying
We cannot become the third chamber of Parliament
Delimitation is a legislative exercise and the guidelines for carrying out that exercise cannot be tweaked by the courts.
By approaching the constitutional court, you have dialled a wrong number.
Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, can constitutionally operate in a manner which permits the same territorial constituencies to remain reserved for SCs over successive electoral cycles without any mechanism for periodic rotation