The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether keeping assembly constituencies in Uttar Pradesh reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates for decades without rotation would amount to restriction of electoral choice.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition challenging the continued reservation of certain assembly constituencies for SC/ST candidates without rotation for several decades.

Justice Bagchi observed that there cannot be an assumption that a majority community will vote on community or caste lines.

"That proceeds on the idea that a majority community will vote on community or caste lines. They may not vote on community and caste lines. The High Court cannot judicially pronounce on a democratic choice. That is for the voters to decide."

He added that the right to vote was not affected merely because a particular constituency was reserved for candidates belonging to a particular community.

"Your right to vote is not in issue. Your right to vote cannot be taken away. You can vote for any community. But if you say that you cannot vote for your community, that will not be countenanced as a valid argument. Your right to contest is not restricted to one constituency. You have other non-reserved constituencies from which you can contest," said Justice Bagchi.

He further held that voters in a multiparty democracy were expected to vote based on political ideologies rather than the caste or religion of candidates.

"In a political democracy, there are multiple political parties having different ideologies. The voters are expected to vote for the party, not for the religion. You may like or dislike a particular political ideology. Who is representing that ideology becomes irrelevant. You vote for that ideology. So that also defeats your argument," Justice Bagchi told the petitioner.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the authorities could at least be directed to consider introducing rotation, as is done in the case of municipal elections.

The Court, however, rejected the plea, suggesting that the petitioner could take up the issue with the legislature and the relevant authorities.

The petition before the Court challenged the continued reservation of Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh for Scheduled Caste candidates.

The petitioner had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court arguing that the absence of rotation in the reservation of assembly constituencies was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The High Court had dismissed the plea in June 2026. It had held that introducing rotation was a matter for the legislature and that courts could not direct such a change.

The petitioner subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging that High Court decision.

Today, the petitioner argued that Kadipur Assembly constituency had remained reserved since the first general elections in 1952, restricting electoral choice.

"We have brought data showing that, for the last 75 years, almost the same three or four families have benefited. The same three or four families, in rotation. It is not even for the upliftment of the community. Only a few families are benefiting. We have nothing against them," said the counsel.

The Court, however, questioned whether the grievance necessarily raises a constitutional question.

"But that does not become a constitutional question. It becomes a choice for the legislature and the constitutional authorities to take appropriate decisions for rotation and thereby representation of different categories," said Justice Bagchi.

He also observed that the argument that prolonged reservation creates caste divisions was not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the existing law.

"Whether that is just or not, or whether that will create a sense of division in society on lines of caste, is for the legislature to examine. It is not something which will run counter to the Constitution," said Justice Bagchi.

Additionally, the Court examined the constitutional framework governing reservation in legislatures. The petitioner's counsel referred to Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, which provide for reservation of seats for SC/ST candidates in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, respectively.

Justice Bagchi observed that while Article 332 provides for reservation and determines the number of seats, it does not prescribe how individual constituencies should be selected.

"Article 332 only says there will be reservation, how many seats there will be, and the ratio of the population of the reserved category. How do you select the seats? That is the question," he said.

The counsel argued that the absence of rotation was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Justice Bagchi, however, said that disagreement with the criteria for selecting reserved constituencies did not necessarily make the law unconstitutional.

"The only thing we have to examine is manifest arbitrariness. We may agree or disagree with the criteria for choosing the seats. That does not necessarily make the choice unconstitutional," he said.

The counsel also relied on Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution, which provide for reservation and rotation of seats in panchayats and municipalities respectively, to argue that a similar mechanism should apply to Assembly constituencies.

Justice Bagchi then pointed out that local body elections were governed by a separate constitutional framework.

"We cannot rewrite the Constitution or the statute," he said.

When the counsel argued that the Court could read down the relevant provision to introduce rotation, Justice Bagchi responded,

"But we cannot rewrite it by directing the introduction of rotation in respect of reservation."

"We cannot play the role of a third chamber of Parliament," added CJI Kant.

At one point, CJI Kant told the counsel that he was approaching the wrong forum for the relief sought.

"You are dialling the wrong number. This is a season of dharna, protest etc. You should also do the same," he remarked.

The counsel apologised, saying that he did not intend to protest and that he had a bad throat.

"You can raise your voice and say that the time has come for Parliament to revisit this. But that can only be done by the legislature," responded CJI Kant.

[Read Live Coverage]