Delimitation Act Section 9(1)(c) | Reservation of SC/ST Constituencies Based on Population Proportion Upheld as Non-Arbitrary : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court's judgment in Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India examines the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which mandates reservation of Assembly constituencies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in areas where their population proportion is comparatively large. The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge, holding that the provision neither violates fundamental rights nor lacks legislative competence, while emphasizing the limits of judicial intervention in legislative policy matters.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, a resident of Village Gajendrapur, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, has been an elector in the 191 Kadipur Assembly Constituency since its creation. The constituency has been reserved for Scheduled Castes for nearly six decades, preventing the petitioner from voting for a general category candidate. The petitioner, claiming to be a politically active social worker, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, and sought rotation of reserved constituencies similar to Panchayat elections under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution.

Key Facts

• The petitioner's constituency (Kadipur Assembly Constituency No. 191) has remained reserved for Scheduled Castes since its creation
• The petitioner claims his right to vote for a general category candidate is violated due to continuous reservation
• Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 mandates reservation of constituencies where SC/ST population proportion is comparatively large
• The petitioner appeared before the Delimitation Commission on 09.09.2006 and requested adoption of rotational principle for reserved constituencies
• The impugned notification dated 18.12.2006 reserved Kadipur Assembly Constituency for Scheduled Castes

Procedural History

• 09.09.2006: Petitioner made representation before Delimitation Commission
• 18.12.2006: Notification issued reserving Kadipur Assembly Constituency for Scheduled Castes
• 2008: Delimitation Commission's order published in Gazette of India
• 2011: Writ petition filed before Allahabad High Court (Writ-C No. 6153 of 2011)
• 12.03.2026: Matter reserved for judgment
• 22.06.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the writ petition

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner:

• Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 is ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 19, 330, and 332 of the Constitution
• Continuous reservation of constituencies with large SC/ST population violates the principle of equality
• The provision creates a "conditional vote" system, compelling voters to vote only for SC/ST candidates
• Rotation of reserved constituencies should be adopted as in Panchayat and Municipal elections
• Constitutional debates show framers never intended permanent reservation of specific constituencies
• National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution (2002) recommended rotation of reserved seats

For the Respondent (Election Commission of India):

• Article 329(a) of the Constitution bars judicial review of delimitation laws
• Orders of Delimitation Commission have force of law and cannot be challenged
• Proviso to Article 330(3) prohibits changes in reservation until census after 2026
• Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission (AIR 1967 SC 669) held delimitation orders cannot be questioned
• Petition suffers from delay and laches as notification was published in 2008
• Rotation of reserved constituencies is a policy matter beyond judicial mandate

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the notification dated 18.12.2006 reserving Kadipur Assembly Constituency for Scheduled Castes
• Declaration that Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 is ultra vires the Constitution
• Direction to the Election Commission to declare Kadipur Assembly Constituency as a general constituency
• Adoption of rotational principle for reservation of Assembly constituencies

The Legal Issue

The primary question was whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 is unconstitutional for mandating reservation of constituencies in areas where the proportion of SC/ST population is comparatively large, without providing for rotation, thereby allegedly violating Articles 14, 15, 19, 330, and 332 of the Constitution. The ancillary question was whether the Court could direct the legislature to adopt a rotational reservation system through a writ of mandamus.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Violation of Equality: Section 9(1)(c) creates discrimination by reserving constituencies with large SC/ST populations indefinitely, violating Article 14
• Conditional Voting: Voters in reserved constituencies are compelled to vote only for SC/ST candidates, violating Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) and Article 326 (right to vote)
• Constitutional Intent: Framers of the Constitution rejected the proposal to reserve constituencies with large SC/ST populations, as seen in Constituent Assembly debates
• Policy Recommendation: National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution (2002) recommended rotation of reserved seats
• Judicial Precedent: Reliance on Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (2024) to argue that judicial review is permissible despite Article 329

For the Respondent

• Bar on Judicial Review: Article 329(a) prohibits judicial review of delimitation laws
• Force of Law: Orders of Delimitation Commission have the force of law and cannot be questioned, as held in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission (AIR 1967 SC 669)
• Legislative Competence: Section 9(1)(c) was enacted by Parliament under Entry 72 of List I and Article 327 of the Constitution
• Delay and Laches: Petition filed after significant delay from 2008 notification
• Policy Matter: Rotation of reserved constituencies is a legislative policy decision beyond judicial purview
• No Constitutional Violation: Articles 330 and 332 do not mandate rotation, leaving methodology to Parliament

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a multi-pronged analysis of the constitutional and statutory framework governing reservation of constituencies:

"The question that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Act, 2002 is ultra vires on the ground that it provides for allotment of constituencies for the reserved category in those areas where the proportion of their population is comparatively large without providing for rotation, resulting in stagnation of a particular seat remaining reserved for the reserved category for all times to come, thereby being violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India."

Constitutional Scheme of Reservation

The Court examined Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, which mandate reservation of seats for SC/ST in the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies, respectively. The Court noted:

• Article 330(2) requires the number of reserved seats to bear the same proportion to total seats as the SC/ST population bears to the total population
• Article 332(3) mandates similar proportional reservation for State Legislative Assemblies
• Neither provision prescribes a methodology for identifying reserved constituencies, leaving it to legislative enactment

Legislative Framework

The Court analyzed the statutory regime governing delimitation:

• Representation of the People Act, 1950: Provides for allocation of seats and reservation in the First and Second Schedules
• Delimitation Act, 2002: Constitutes the Delimitation Commission, which is empowered to:
  • Readjust territorial constituencies under Section 8
  • Distribute seats under Section 9, including Section 9(1)(c), which mandates reservation in areas where SC/ST population proportion is comparatively large
  • Publish orders under Section 10, which have the force of law and supersede all other provisions

The Court emphasized that Section 10(4) of the Act, 2002 makes the Delimitation Commission's orders applicable to all elections held after their publication, giving them statutory finality.

Judicial Review and Article 329

The Court addressed the preliminary objection regarding maintainability under Article 329(a), which bars judicial review of delimitation laws. Relying on Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (2024), the Court held:

"Article 329 of Constitution cannot be construed to completely debar citizens from pleading their grievance in cases where interpretation of constitutional provisions is required for facilitating the elections or when a case for malafide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out."

The Court distinguished Meghraj Kothari, noting that while judicial review may be restricted to prevent election delays, it is not entirely barred, especially when constitutional interpretation is required.

Challenge to Section 9(1)(c)

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that Section 9(1)(c) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 for the following reasons:

1. Legislative Competence: The provision was enacted by Parliament under Entry 72 of List I and Article 327, which empower Parliament to make laws on elections
2. No Constitutional Violation: Articles 330 and 332 do not prohibit reservation in constituencies with large SC/ST populations. The methodology is left to Parliament
3. No Manifest Arbitrariness: The Court relied on Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 2 SCC 445, which held that statutes cannot be struck down merely for being "arbitrary" unless they violate specific constitutional provisions

"We do not find that providing reservation under Section 9(1)(c) of the Act, 2002 for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in those areas where comparatively the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is large suffers from manifest arbitrariness or can be said to be unreasonable inasmuch as the legislature in its wisdom has provided for reserving seats where population of SC/ST is comparatively larger which cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable."

The Court also rejected the argument that continuous reservation violates the right to vote, holding:

• The right to vote under Articles 325 and 326 is subject to laws made by Parliament under Article 327
• Reservation of seats is a constitutional mandate under Articles 330 and 332, which cannot be overridden by a general category candidate's right to contest
• Voters in reserved constituencies cannot dictate constituency allotment or insist on voting for a particular category of candidate

Separation of Powers

The Court emphasized the limits of judicial intervention in legislative policy:

• Judicial Restraint: Courts cannot direct legislatures to enact laws in a particular manner, as held in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 323)
• Legislative Wisdom: The methodology for reservation is a policy decision within Parliament's exclusive domain
• No Mandamus for Rotation: The Court cannot issue directions to adopt rotational reservation, as this would amount to judicial legislation

"It is not within the domain of this court to issue directions for legislating the Act, 2002 in a manner so as to provide for rotation of reserved seats for Assembly/Parliamentary constituencies as provided under Article 243(D) and 243(T) for Panchayats and Municipalities etc. and it is the Parliament which has to take call on the subjects."

The Verdict

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding:

• Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid and not ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 19, 330, or 332 of the Constitution
• The provision does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness
• The petitioner's right to vote is not violated, as it is subject to the constitutional scheme of reservation
• The Court cannot direct Parliament to adopt a rotational reservation system, as this falls within legislative policy
• No order as to costs was passed

What This Means For Similar Cases

Limits of Judicial Review in Delimitation Matters

• Article 329(a) bars judicial review of delimitation laws, but this bar is not absolute. Courts can intervene when:
  • Constitutional interpretation is required to facilitate elections
  • There is a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power (Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod)
  • The challenge is to the vires of a statutory provision rather than the delimitation order itself
• Practitioners must frame challenges carefully, focusing on constitutional validity rather than policy disagreements

Legislative Policy vs. Judicial Mandate

• Courts will not interfere with legislative policy choices unless they violate specific constitutional provisions
• No direction for legislative change: Courts cannot issue mandamus to legislatures to enact laws in a particular manner (Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy)
• Separation of powers: The judiciary's role is limited to interpreting laws, not prescribing legislative methodology
• Policy recommendations: While expert bodies like the National Commission for Review of the Constitution may recommend changes, these do not bind Parliament

Reservation Methodology and Equality

• No manifest arbitrariness: Reservation in constituencies with large SC/ST populations is not arbitrary if it serves the constitutional goal of adequate representation
• Right to vote is not absolute: It is subject to laws made by Parliament under Article 327, including the reservation scheme
• No right to dictate constituency allotment: Voters cannot insist on a constituency being reserved or unreserved for a particular category
• Rotation not mandatory: Unlike Panchayats and Municipalities (Articles 243D and 243T), the Constitution does not mandate rotation for Assembly/Parliamentary constituencies