Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Delimitation To Increase Assembly Seats In Andhra Pradesh & Telangana

The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea seeking directions for the Union to set in motion the delimitation process for increasing the number of assembly seats in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, after having reserved orders on April 30 in the writ petition filed by Professor (Dr.) K. Purushottam Reddy.

Briefly stated, the plea sought directions to the Union to operationalize Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act. It contended that delimiting the assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, created an unreasonable classification and was therefore unconstitutional.

In its judgment, the Court dealt with two issues:

(i) Whether the exclusion of States of AP and Telangana (or any other State), from the scope of delimitation under the Impugned Notifications, and limiting the exercise only to Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?, and

(ii) Whether the Union's failure to give effect to Section 26 of the AP Reorganization Act frustrated the legitimate expectation of the electorates of the two States, thereby giving rise to a justiciable cause of action?

Insofar as the first issue, the Court rejected the argument of discrimination vis-a-vis UT of Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that the provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different when compared to UTs. It therefore held that the exclusion of States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for J&K was not arbitrary or discriminatory.

"This submission seems legally untenable to us as it overlooks the well-settled constitutional distinctions that exist between the governance of States and Union Territories. The aforementioned plea of discrimination fails to appreciate that differential treatment, when founded upon constitutional classifications, does not automatically violate the equality clause contained in Article 14."

"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. On the contrary, the governance and composition of Union Territory legislatures are regulated by Parliamentary Legislation enacted under Article 239A of the Constitution", the Court said.

On the second issue, it was noted that Section 26 of the AP Reorganization Act is subject to Article 170 of the Constitution, as per which delimitation can be held only after the first census is conducted after 2026.

"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. This qualifying phrase cannot be read as surplusage and must be given full legal effect...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, including the division of each State into territorial constituencies, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published."

The Court held that Article 170(3) acts as a Constitutional bar in entertaining the plea for delimitation. To allow such a prayer will open the "floodgates" of litigation by other States, it said.

"the provision (Section 26) 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 of the Constitution...What is even more compelling is the inevitable consequence that would follow if the reliefs sought in these Writ Petitions were to be granted. It would open the floodgates to similar demands from other States, each seeking early delimitation on the ground of parity or administrative convenience. Granting such relief in contravention of the constitutional timeline provided under Article 170(3) of the Constitution would not only destabilise the uniform electoral framework envisaged by the Constitution but also blur the clear demarcation between constitutional prescription and political discretion."

Case Title: K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 488/2022 (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 741

Click here to read the judgment