Supreme Court says it cannot interfere in criteria for SC/ST reserved constituencies

The Supreme Court declined to quash the notification reserving Kadipur assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh for Scheduled Castes. The key issue was not whether reservation exists, but who has constitutional authority to identify and reserve constituencies. The bench said that power belongs to the legislature, not the judiciary.

The petitioner challenged how constituencies were geographically identified. Senior advocate Gagan Gupta also questioned whether the same constituency could remain reserved through successive elections without rotation. The bench replied that delimitation is a legislative exercise and courts cannot rewrite its guidelines or impose rotational reservation.

The court therefore refused to entertain the petition. It suggested that the petitioner could protest and urge elected representatives to revise the criteria or adopt rotational reservation. The judges stressed that the Supreme Court cannot become a “third chamber of Parliament” by taking over Parliament’s exclusive role.

A reserved constituency is a seat where candidacy is limited to members of a constitutionally recognised community. An SC-reserved seat can be contested by Scheduled Caste candidates, while an ST-reserved seat can be contested by Scheduled Tribe candidates. The reservation is meant to ensure representation for these communities in elected legislatures.

For example, Kadipur assembly constituency was notified as reserved for SCs. A general-category candidate could not contest that seat under the reservation arrangement, while eligible SC candidates could. The electorate still chooses the representative through an election; the restriction concerns who may stand as a candidate.

The article cites Articles 330 and 332 as the constitutional basis for reserving parliamentary and assembly constituencies for SCs and STs. It also reports that the Allahabad High Court held that a general candidate cannot claim a right to contest from a constituency reserved for these communities.

Two parts of the process must be separated. The legislature establishes the legal framework and criteria for constituency reservation. The Delimitation Commission then undertakes the technical exercise of drawing constituency boundaries and identifying seats for SC or ST reservation under those rules.

The dispute concerned Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. The petitioner questioned whether it allowed the same territorial constituencies to remain reserved across successive electoral cycles without rotation. The Supreme Court answered that delimitation is legislative in character and that its guidelines cannot be tweaked by judges.

The bench therefore refused to mandate a rotational policy for the Delimitation Commission. It said identifying constituencies for SC or ST reservation was the legislature’s prerogative. Changes to the criteria must consequently come through elected representatives and the legislative process, rather than a court order.

A reserved Lok Sabha constituency is counted within the total parliamentary seats but is designated for SC or ST candidates. The current allocation is 84 seats for Scheduled Castes and 47 for Scheduled Tribes, making 131 reserved seats altogether. These figures help ensure representation broadly linked to the communities’ population distribution.

The number is determined through the constitutional delimitation framework. Reserved seats are allocated in proportion to SC and ST population, using the relevant census basis and the applicable delimitation exercise. Boundaries are then drawn so that the required number of constituencies is reserved in different areas.

The supplied article does not provide the 84, 47, or 131 figures. It only refers generally to Articles 330 and 332, the Delimitation Act, 2002, and the legislature’s authority. The current figures come from established constitutional and delimitation information beyond the article.

When a constituency is reserved for SCs or STs, the candidate pool is restricted to members of the specified community. A general-category candidate therefore loses the ability to file a valid candidacy for that particular seat. The election remains open to voters, but not to every possible candidate.

For instance, Kadipur was notified as an SC-reserved assembly constituency. An eligible SC candidate could contest it, while a general-category candidate could not. The Allahabad High Court addressed this issue and said no general candidate could claim that reservation violated a right to contest from an SC- or ST-reserved constituency.

This means reservation changes access to a particular seat, not the existence of elections. A general-category candidate may need to contest another unreserved constituency. The Supreme Court relied on the constitutional framework and declined to alter the reservation criteria through judicial intervention.

Rotational reservation means changing which constituencies are reserved after successive election cycles. Instead of keeping one territorial constituency reserved repeatedly, the designation would move among eligible constituencies over time. This could spread the effects of reservation more widely and give different communities and candidates access to reserved seats in different elections.

In this case, the petitioner asked whether the same constituencies could remain reserved without periodic rotation. The bench did not decide that rotation was required. It said the guidelines for delimitation cannot be changed by courts and asked whether judges could mandate such a policy for the Delimitation Commission.

If adopted, rotation could alter which constituency general-category candidates may contest in each cycle. It might also change the opportunities available to SC candidates across areas. However, the article makes clear that any such revision must come through elected representatives and the legislative framework, not a judicial order.

Separation of powers keeps the three organs of governance within their constitutional roles. The legislature makes the rules for delimitation and reservation, while the judiciary interprets and applies the law. Because constituency identification is assigned to the legislative framework, judges cannot simply replace its criteria with their preferred policy.

The Kadipur petition asked the court to examine whether the same constituencies could stay reserved without rotation. The bench said delimitation is a legislative exercise. It asked whether the judiciary could direct the Delimitation Commission to adopt rotational reservation and answered, in substance, that it could not.

The court therefore refused to become a “third chamber of Parliament.” It said the petitioner could raise the issue through protests and elected representatives. Any change to reservation criteria or rotation must come through the constitutionally authorised legislative process, preserving the boundary between judicial review and lawmaking.