Sanchayita Lahkar

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, has dismissed a plea seeking delimitation of legislative assembly constituencies in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The Court held that any increase in the number of assembly seats in these States, as contemplated under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, is constitutionally barred until the publication of census figures following the first census after the year 2026. The Bench directed that the impugned notifications issued for delimitation in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and the claim of parity made by the petitioners was legally untenable.

The Court concluded that the plea raised no legally enforceable right and any attempt to direct a delimitation exercise before the expiration of the constitutional embargo would amount to judicial interference in a policy matter governed by explicit constitutional provisions. The Writ Petitions were found to be devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed, with all pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Also Read: Second Quashing Petition Under Section 482 CrPC Not Maintainable On Pre-Existing Grounds | Supreme Court Restores Criminal Complaint

The Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 488 of 2022 and No. 718 of 2022 were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Notification Nos. SO 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021 (together referred to as the Impugned Notifications) issued by the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice. The petitioners assailed the legality of these notifications which facilitated a delimitation exercise for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, while excluding the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the same process.

The petitioners argued that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially in light of Section 26(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. This provision stated that the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would be increased from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153, respectively. The petitioners contended that this statutory mandate had not been implemented, and that the impugned exclusion undermined the legal rights and expectations of the electorates of both States.

The factual background included the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on 02.06.2014, following which Section 26(1) of the AP Reorganisation Act laid the groundwork for increased legislative representation. Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which came into force on 31.10.2019, created two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Section 60 of this Act increased the number of seats in the J&K Legislative Assembly and permitted a delimitation exercise.

The 2020 Notification constituted a Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir and four North-Eastern States, but the 2021 Notification restricted its scope to Jammu and Kashmir alone. The petitioners argued that this selective exercise of power amounted to a violation of Article 14.

The Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor General, opposed the petitions, arguing that no enforceable right had been violated. It was submitted that Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution barred any delimitation of State Assemblies until the post-2026 census data is available. Hence, any attempt to initiate delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would directly contravene this constitutional embargo.

It was further contended that the delimitation undertaken in Jammu and Kashmir was pursuant to powers under Article 239A, applicable to Union Territories, and was distinct from the process governing States. The Election Commission supported this view and clarified that it acted only to implement the delimitation process as directed by the notifications issued by the Union of India.

The petitioners were represented by learned counsel Mr. Rao Ranjit, who contended that the omission of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was not based on any intelligible differentia and therefore violated Article 14. The counsel submitted that the electorate of the two States had a legitimate expectation based on Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act.

The key issues framed by the Court were whether the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was arbitrary under Article 14, and whether the Union’s failure to implement Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act gave rise to a justiciable cause of action.

The Bench examined Article 170 of the Constitution and Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. The Court recorded, "A plain and harmonious reading of the statutory and constitutional provisions makes it evident that Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is expressly made 'subject to' the mandate contained in Article 170 of the Constitution." It was held that this qualifying phrase must be given full legal effect and that any contrary interpretation would undermine the constitutional framework.

In assessing the claim under Article 14, the Court stated, "Permitting such isolated departures from the constitutional embargo would also amount to an impermissible deviation from the equality principle embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution, and would amount to a facially discriminatory practice without any valid classification."

The Bench further observed, "It would open the floodgates to similar demands from other States... thereby unsettling the finality and uniformity that the Constitution seeks to preserve in matters of electoral readjustment."

With regard to the legitimacy of delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir, the Court distinguished the constitutional framework for Union Territories. It recorded, "Jammu and Kashmir, having been reconstituted as a Union Territory under the J&K Reorganisation Act, is not governed by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution, which pertains exclusively to State Legislatures."

Referring to the judgment in Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that, "As far as the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of J&K is concerned, Article 170 will have no application... The Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A."

On the plea of legitimate expectation, the Court observed, "It must be borne in mind that the expectation must be legitimate, in the sense that it is not only reasonable but also legally sustainable within the structure of the governing statute or constitutional scheme." The Bench held that, "any expectation arising from the text of Section 26... stands eclipsed by this express constitutional limitation."

Ultimately, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Union of India’s inaction violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It stated, "The legal threshold for invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation has not been met."

The Court issued the following directives: "In view of the foregoing analysis, we hold that the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) of the Constitution serves as a bar on any delimitation exercise concerning the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, or any other State."

"The demand for immediate delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana runs contrary to both the letter and spirit of the constitutional design."

Also Read: Bombay HC Refuses To Recall Demolition Order | Says Mob Fury And Footfall On Claimed Dargah Can’t Establish Legality

"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 the vice of arbitrariness or discrimination."

"The Petitioner(s), 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)."

"We have also found no merit in the Petitioner(s)’ reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectation."

"Accordingly, the Writ Petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of."

Case Title: K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 894

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of 2022 and No. 718 of 2022

Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh