SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Delimitation To Increase Assembly Seats In AP , Telangana

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the petitioner’s argument of alleged discrimination, clarifying that the legal provisions governing delimitation in States differ from those applicable to Union Territories.

The court held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and was, therefore, constitutional.

The petition was filed by K. Purushottam Reddy, who sought directions to the Centre to operationalize Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which pertains to the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in the two States.

The petitioner contended that conducting a delimitation exercise exclusively for the newly formed Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, while excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, amounted to an unreasonable classification and was thus unconstitutional.

However, the apex court observed that Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act is subject to Article 170 of the Constitution, which stipulates that a delimitation exercise for State Assemblies can only be conducted after the first census to be held post-2026.

The court also noted that granting the petitioner’s request would open the floodgates for similar litigation from other States seeking delimitation.

“It is evident that the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the purview of the delimitation process under the impugned notifications does not suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination. The distinction drawn is firmly anchored in the constitutional structure, particularly the proviso to Article 170(3), which expressly bars any readjustment in the total number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of States until the first census after the year 2026. The legislative and constitutional framework thus provides a clear and rational basis for such tailored administrative distinction,” the judgment stated.

The bench further clarified: “Article 170 has no application to Union Territories, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim parity between the position of Jammu and Kashmir and that of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which remain subject to the constitutional scheme governing States. The delimitation exercise carried out in Jammu and Kashmir, being governed by a distinct constitutional and statutory regime, cannot be analogically extended to States that are explicitly bound by the constitutional restraint imposed under Article 170(3). The impugned notifications thus do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. “In matters governed by express constitutional provisions and legislative policy, this doctrine cannot be invoked to claim an enforceable right contrary to the constitutional arrangement,” the court held.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed as being devoid of merit. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.