Supreme Court rejects plea seeking delimitation, increase of assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a petition seeking directions to the Central government to conduct delimitation exercise for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said that the two States cannot be treated at par with Jammu and Kashmir where delimitation was undertaken in 2022 and the number of assembly seats were increased.

"We have held that this will open floodgates for all states to approach seeking parity. We hold that constitutional mandate under 170(3) serves as a bar. Demand for the Delimitation is contrary to the same and thus fails.
J&K having been reconstituted is not governed by chapter 3 of part VII of the Constitution. Thus we find no merit that exclusion of AP and Telangana from the impugned delimitation notification is arbitrary or violative of the constitution," the Court said.

Therefore, it rejected the petition filed by one K Purushottam Reddy.

At the heart of the challenge was Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which had proposed an increase in the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from 175 to 225 and 119 to 153, respectively.

The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the statutory provision in Section 26 must be read in conjunction with Article 170 of the Constitution, which governs the composition and delimitation of State Legislatures.

“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,” the Court observed.

It noted that Article 170(3) contains an express embargo against any readjustment of seats in State Legislative Assemblies until the publication of the first census figures after 2026. The petitioners’ reliance on Section 26, therefore, could not override this constitutional bar.

“The proviso to Article 170(3) unequivocally and overarchingly provides that it shall not be necessary to readjust the allocation of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State… until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published,” the Bench held.

The Court further underlined that delimitation is not a self-executing mandate under Section 26, but is conditional upon the broader constitutional scheme.

“The provision is not self-executing; it does not, by itself, mandate delimitation but merely declares a legislative framework for it, subject to the peremptory control of Article 170,” the judgment stated.

Why Jammu and Kashmir is treated differently

The Court dealt in detail with the argument that delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir had set a precedent that should be followed in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. It rejected this contention outright, noting that the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir falls within a different constitutional framework.

“As far as the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of J&K is concerned, Article 170 will have no application as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals only with the State Legislature,” the Court noted, quoting its earlier decision in Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India.

The Court explained that Jammu and Kashmir, as a Union Territory, is governed by Article 239A, under which Parliament may legislate differently for Union Territories. Therefore, the delimitation conducted in Jammu and Kashmir could not be used as a basis to demand similar treatment for States governed by Article 170.

“The two States in question and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir operate in distinct constitutional domains,” the Bench observed.

It added that if such relief were to be granted, it would open the doors to similar demands from other States, including the North-Eastern States that were earlier excluded from the 2020 delimitation notification.

“It would open the floodgates to similar demands from other States… Granting such relief in contravention of the constitutional timeline would destabilise the uniform electoral framework,” the Court said.

Reddy moved the Court contending that while delimitation was conducted for J&K and the number of seats were increased, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were left out and that the same was arbitrary.

He also claimed that it was in violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectations.

The Court acknowledged the sentiment but held that legitimate expectation cannot override a clear constitutional bar.

“While the sentiment underlying the claim of the Petitioner(s) may not be without foundation… the legal threshold for invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation has not been met,” the Court held.

“It is trite law that the doctrine of legitimate expectation… does not clothe a party with an enforceable right in itself. It operates within the bounds of legality and must necessarily conform to constitutional and statutory mandates.”

Since Section 26 itself was made expressly subject to Article 170, no expectation could be enforced in its absence, the top court held.

[Read Live Coverage]

[Read Judgment]