Voter Can't Claim Right To Vote For General Category Candidate By Seeking De-Reservation Of Constituency: Allahabad High Court
While upholding the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, the Allahabad High Court has held that a voter cannot claim right to vote for general category candidate by seeking de-reservation of constituency. The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,“The right to vote does not imply that a voter can dictate the terms of allotment of a constituency...
While upholding the validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, the Allahabad High Court has held that a voter cannot claim right to vote for general category candidate by seeking de-reservation of constituency.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“The right to vote does not imply that a voter can dictate the terms of allotment of a constituency or insist that a constituency be allotted to candidates of a particular category.”
Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 provides for locating constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large.
Constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision was challenged by the petitioner on grounds that the seat had stood reserved for the Scheduled Castes for almost six decades since its creation, compelling him to cast a “caste-bonded vote” in favour of only Scheduled Caste candidates for generations. It was argued that he was deprived of the right to vote for a general category candidate.
The Court observed that the petitioner's argument that he was subjected to conditional voting was devoid of merits as right to vote does not give the voters the right to dictate terms of allotment of constituencies.
It held that the right to vote under Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India are subject to prescribed limitations. Holding that the Parliament is empowered to make laws relating to elections, the Court held that petitioner's right to vote remains subject to such laws made by the Parliament.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajbala and others vs. State of Haryana and Others wherein it was held that the right to vote must be read harmoniously with Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution which provide for reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of the States in proportion to their population.
"Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's constituency has remained reserved for decades as a Scheduled Castes constituency, thereby depriving him of the right to vote for a general category candidate and forcing him into “conditional voting”, is also devoid of any merit," Court said.
Case Title: Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375