Allahabad High Court upholds Alapur SC reservation and Ambedkar Nagar delimitation

Delimitation challenge dismissed in Uttar Pradesh

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition challenging the reservation of the Alapur Assembly seat for Scheduled Castes and the delimitation of constituencies in Uttar Pradesh's Ambedkar Nagar district.

A division bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary ruled that the legal challenge was highly belated and failed to establish any violation of constitutional provisions. The petitioner, local elector Dileep Kumar, had sought a complete revision of the boundary arrangement published on 5 December 2006, arguing that population distribution across the district's five Assembly seats—Katehari, Tanda, Alapur, Jalalpur and Akbarpur—was unequal.

Kumar pointed to population figures where Jalalpur had 4,60,245 residents compared with 3,68,722 in Akbarpur, claiming this disparity breached Article 170(2) of the Constitution. He further contended that the Scheduled Caste population share in Alapur did not justify maintaining its reserved classification.

Dismissing the arguments, the bench clarified that Article 170(2) mandates population parity only so far as practicable, leaving the Delimitation Commission clear authority to account for geographical continuity and administrative boundaries. The court noted that internal guidelines permitting up to a 10 per cent population variation are administrative benchmarks rather than enforceable statutory rights.

The court emphasized that the 2006 delimitation order had long acquired the force of law, having governed successive Assembly elections without disruption. Reopening the arrangement almost two decades later would be inequitable, the bench noted, particularly with a fresh national delimitation exercise expected following the upcoming census.

Supreme Court affirms conversion reservation limits

In a concurrent decision reinforcing statutory clarity around affirmative action, the Supreme Court upheld a Madras High Court judgment stating that individuals who convert from Hinduism to a non-Hindu religion cannot carry forward caste-based reservation benefits.

A bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal by the Tamil Nadu government against the striking down of its March 2024 order. That state order had permitted converts to Islam from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to claim Backward Class Muslim status across seven notified categories.

The Supreme Court held that social backwardness linked to a person's pre-conversion status cannot be transferred under Article 16(4) of the Constitution upon adopting a non-Hindu religion. Referring to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the bench reiterated that Scheduled Caste status remains strictly restricted to individuals professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism.

Both judgments reinforce national legal stability and the integrity of established administrative frameworks governing electoral representation and reservation policy.