Government to convene special Parliament session and Supreme Court denies seat rotation

Home Minister Amit Shah stated on Tuesday that the government is ready to convene a special session of Parliament to discuss the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. According to a report by The Economic Times, opposition parties are criticizing this process and demanding discussions on its implementation and its impact. Meanwhile, discussions are also ongoing regarding the status of Parliament's monsoon session. According to an NDTV India report, 83 days have passed since the conclusion of Parliament's monsoon session, but its formal adjournment has not yet occurred. There is discussion that the government may convene a special session to pass constitutional amendment bills such as delimitation and women's reservation.

Amidst political debates, the Supreme Court has also delivered an important legal decision. According to a report by The Hindu, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (4 November, 2026) dismissed the application for mandatory rotation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Parliament and State Legislatures. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana observed that the power to take such decisions lies with the legislature and the court cannot issue orders for such decisions.

The bench refused to interfere in the Allahabad High Court's judgment, which upheld Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002. This section provides for the identification of reserved seats in areas where the proportion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population is relatively high.

The applicant in this case was Jagdish Singh, a voter from the 191-Kadipur Assembly constituency in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. He challenged the continuous reservation of this seat and claimed that this seat has been reserved for almost seven decades since its creation. He argued that the lack of a rotation mechanism violates Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution. According to Singh, this arrangement limits the choice of voters because they can only choose Scheduled Caste candidates. He also claimed that instead of advancing the interests of the wider community, the current arrangement benefits only limited political families.

The applicant sought a method similar to the rotational reservation provided under Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution for Panchayats and Municipalities. However, during the hearing, Justice Bagchi made an important observation. He said that in a multi-party democracy, voters are expected to make electoral choices based on political ideologies, not on caste or religion. He clarified that in a political democracy, there are many political parties with different ideologies and voters should vote for a party, not for religion. You can choose or dislike a particular political ideology, but who represents that ideology becomes irrelevant.

The bench also clarified the difference between the right to vote and the right to contest elections from a particular constituency. The court observed that candidates from the general category are still eligible to contest elections in non-reserved seats.

Chief Justice Surya Kant told the applicant that he had approached the wrong forum to change policy and such demands should be presented before Parliament. He also remarked lightheartedly that the applicant could also raise this issue through public protest and demonstrations. The bench finally noted that although rotation should ideally be followed, as the Allahabad High Court observed, the court cannot issue such an order and it is within the domain of Parliament. The applicant can contact public representatives and persuade them to adopt the principle of rotation.

The Delimitation Act, 2002 provided the framework for determining the boundaries of constituencies. The Allahabad High Court had previously upheld the provisions of this law.