# Supreme Court rejects plea for rotation of SC/ST reserved seats 2026-11-04T11:03:54+00:00 | Governance | Indian Opinion Desk Corroboration: 5 independent outlets The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 4 November 2026, refused a plea seeking mandatory rotation of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state assemblies, ruling that the matter lies within Parliament’s domain and cannot be directed by courts. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana upheld the Allahabad High Court’s judgment sustaining Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. The provision identifies reserved constituencies in areas with a comparatively higher proportion of SC/ST residents and does not mandate periodic rotation. The court said the petitioner, Jagdish Singh, an elector from the 191-Kadipur constituency in Uttar Pradesh that has been reserved for seven decades, could approach public representatives to build consensus for legislative change. ## Indian Opinion Analysis The verdictum.in report offers the fullest court transcript, including Justice Bagchi’s reasoning that Section 9(1)(c) ‘furtherances a democratic principle’ by reserving where the community is concentrated, a defence absent from wire-based summaries. The other four outlets (Hindustan Times, India Today, Deccan Herald, New Indian Express) are effectively uniform PTI copy, each leading with the ‘dialling the wrong number’ remark and the CJI’s protest suggestion. None of the five sources presents the petitioner’s claim that three or four families had been elected over 75 years, a detail only verdictum.in includes. The coverage is uniformly straight reporting, with no outlet adopting a pro-government or critical stance on the substance. The only open point is the petitioner’s stated right to approach public representatives to build consensus for legislative change. ## Coverage Coverage: 5 sources, 5 neutral - verdictum.in (neutral report) Full court transcript with defence of Section 9(1)(c) - hindustantimes.com (neutral report) PTI wire: leads with ‘dialling the wrong number’ - indiatoday.in (neutral report) PTI wire: leads with court vs Parliament domain - deccanherald.com (neutral report) PTI wire: includes CJI’s protest suggestion - newindianexpress.com (neutral report) PTI wire: notes petitioner free to approach representatives This brief was synthesised by AI from the 5 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Tags: Allahabad High Court, Delimitation Act 2002, Jagdish Singh, Supreme Court of India, Surya Kant Canonical: https://indianopinion.org/supreme-court-rejects-plea-for-rotation-of-sc-st-reserved-seats/ License: Summary and commentary (c) Indian Opinion, reusable with attribution. Facts belong to the linked sources. Cite: https://indianopinion.org/supreme-court-rejects-plea-for-rotation-of-sc-st-reserved-seats/#story-in-brief How this brief was made: an AI model read the reports linked above and wrote this summary and analysis, which were published automatically. Published briefs are sampled every hour by an automated quality check; the editor verifies its findings and approves corrections, and corrected briefs carry a dated correction line. Stance labels are editorial classifications of how each outlet framed this story, assigned by the same model, not ratings of the outlets. We do no original reporting. Methodology: https://indianopinion.org/ai-use-policy/