Courts Cannot Direct Parliament To Adopt Rotational Reservation For Assembly Seats; Section 9(1)(c) Delimitation Act Valid: Allahabad High Court

"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," High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in a significant ruling, held that the judiciary cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the legislature to adopt a "rotational" system for reserved constituencies.

A bench of Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. and Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J. observed that while the Constitution provides for rotation in local body elections, it remains silent on such a methodology for State Assemblies and Parliament, leaving the matter to legislative wisdom.

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Jagdish Singh, a resident of Kadipur Assembly Constituency in Sultanpur. The petitioner challenged the continued reservation of the seat for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category for nearly six decades, arguing that the lack of a rotational roster compelled him to cast a "caste-bonded vote" and prevented general category candidates from contesting. The petition eventually reached the High Court challenging the vires of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.

The primary questions before the court were whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 is unconstitutional for providing reservation based on the "comparatively large" population of SC/STs without a rotation principle. The court was also called upon to determine if it could direct the legislature to implement a rotational system for Assembly and Parliamentary seats under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Maintainability Of Writ Petition Against Delimitation Matters

The court first addressed the preliminary objection raised by the Election Commission regarding the bar under Article 329(a) of the Constitution. The respondents argued that delimitation orders have the force of law and cannot be questioned in any court. However, the bench rejected this absolute bar, placing reliance on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India (2024).

The bench noted that Article 329 cannot be construed to completely debar citizens from pleading grievances where the interpretation of constitutional provisions is required or where a case of manifest arbitrariness is made out. It held that judicial review under Article 226 remains permissible to check the validity of orders on the touchstone of the Constitution, provided the intervention does not unnecessarily delay the election process.

"Article 329 of Constitution cannot be construed to completely debar citizens from pleading their grievance in cases where interpretation of constitutional provisions is required."

Constitutional Mandate For SC/ST Reservation In Legislatures

While examining the scheme of Articles 330 and 332, the court observed that the Constitution mandates the reservation of seats in proportion to the population of SC/STs. The bench pointed out that these provisions only determine the number of seats to be reserved and are notably silent on the specific methodology for identifying which seats should be reserved.

The court highlighted a critical distinction between the reservation rules for local bodies and those for legislative houses. It noted that while Articles 243D and 243T expressly provide for reservation on a rotational basis for Panchayats and Municipalities, no such mandate exists for the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies under the constitutional framework.

"Articles 330 as well as 332 of the Constitution do not provide any methodology for reservation of seats by applying reservation to constituencies on a rotational basis."

Validity Of Section 9(1)(c) Of The Delimitation Act, 2002

The petitioner argued that Section 9(1)(c) was arbitrary because it directed the Delimitation Commission to locate reserved seats in areas where the SC/ST population is "comparatively large." The bench dismissed this contention, stating that Parliament enacted the 2002 Act in exercise of its powers under Article 327, which allows it to make provisions regarding elections to the legislature.

The court held that since the Constitution does not forbid the "population-proportion" method for locating seats, the Parliament was within its competence to choose that methodology over rotation. It further clarified that the rights of a general category candidate to contest an election cannot override the specific constitutional scheme envisaged for the representation of certain classes.

"The Act, 2002 thus provides the methodology for reservation of seats for SC/ST in those areas where the proportion of population of SC/ST are comparatively large, for which there is no bar under Article 330 and 332."

Limits On Striking Down Statutes For Arbitrariness

Dealing with the challenge under Article 14, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajbala vs. State of Haryana and State of A.P. vs. McDowell & Co. The bench reiterated that a statute cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the vague ground that it is "arbitrary." It noted that a law can only be struck down for lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights.

The court observed that looking into the "wisdom" of a legislative choice regarding seat location would amount to a value judgment that the judiciary is not permitted to make. It held that the legislature is presumed to know the needs of the people, and the court cannot sit in judgment over the choice of population-based reservation versus rotational reservation.

"It is not permissible for this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it is 'arbitrary'."

Separation Of Powers And Judicial Restraint

Finally, the bench emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, noting that the power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. Citing Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, the bench held that courts cannot add words to a statute or read into it a requirement for "rotation" that the legislature purposefully omitted.

The High Court concluded that it has no authority to issue a mandamus to the Parliament to enact a particular kind of law or to substitute the existing statutory methodology. It stated that while the goals of social justice might be achieved through rotation, the decision to implement such a policy remains exclusively within the domain of the Parliament.

"The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate."

The court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. It ruled that the petitioner failed to prove any constitutional infirmity in the existing system of locating reserved seats based on population density. The bench refused to grant any relief regarding the declaration of the Kadipur constituency as a general seat.

Date of Decision: 22 June 2026