SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
K. Purushottam Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of 2022 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 718 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2025
Key Points: - The exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from delimitation is valid as it is mandated by the constitutional freeze under Article 170(3) until the first census after 2026 (!) (!) (!) . - Article 170 of the Constitution applies exclusively to State Legislatures and does not apply to Union Territories like Jammu and Kashmir (!) (!) . - The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override express constitutional provisions or mandate delimitation contrary to Article 170(3) (!) (!) . - Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is subject to the provisions of Article 170 and is not self-executing (!) (!) . - Granting relief for early delimitation would violate Article 14 by creating impermissible classification and destabilizing the uniform electoral framework (!) (!) . - The delimitation exercise for Jammu and Kashmir was lawful under Article 239A and distinct from the statutory framework governing States (!) (!) . - The Writ Petitions challenging the notifications were dismissed as they were devoid of merit (!) . - The Court held that the distinction between States and Union Territories is rational and finds explicit recognition in the constitutional architecture (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge delimitation notifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue delimitation exclusion is unconstitutional. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents argue against enforceable rights of petitioners. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court defines issues on delimitation and constitutionality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court examines relevance of statutory provisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. potential consequences of granting petitioners' demands. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. examine parity claim between states and ut. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. court analyzes doctrine of legitimate expectation. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. court affirms dismissive conclusion on petitions. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. court's final order on the petitions. (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
(SURYA KANT, J.)
1. These two Writ Petitions, instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assail the legality of Notification Nos. SO No. 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 (2020 Notification) and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021 (2021 Notification) (together referred to as the Impugned Notifications) issued by the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Respondent No. 2, herein. It is the case of the Petitioner(s) that, by way of the Impugned Notifications, a delimitation exercise was conducted for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in an increase in the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly, albeit the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were excluded in an arbitrary fashion. The Petitioner(s) consequently seek a direction to Respondent Nos. 1-2 and 5 to similarly increase the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in terms of the applicable statutory provisions.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Before adverting to the issues and contentions raised by the parties, we deem it appropriate to briefly narrate the factual background leading to these Writ Petitions.
2.1. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (AP Reorganisation Act) came into force with effect from 02.06.2014, leading to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two separate states, namely, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Section 26 (1) of the AP Reorganisation Act inter alia provided that “subject to the provisions contained in Article 170 of the Constitution and without prejudice of Section 15 of this Act, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana shall be increased from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153, respectively, and delimitation of the constituencies may be determined by the Election Commission in the manner hereinafter provided.”
2.2. Thereafter, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act , 2019 (J&K Reorganisation Act) came into force on 31.10.2019, bifurcating the then State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: (i) Jammu and Kashmir; and (ii) Ladakh. Similar to the provision under the AP Reorganisation Act, Section 60 of the J&K Reorganisation Act also provided that “without prejudice to sub- sections (3) of section 14 of this Act, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir shall be increased from 107 to 114, and delimitation of the constituencies may be determined by the Election Commission in the manner hereinafter provided.” For context, it may be added that while the J&K Reorganisation Act provided for the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to be 107, in terms of Section 14 (4) (a) and (b) of the Act, 24 out of these 107 seats are not to be taken into account for reckoning the total membership of the Assembly or delimitation exercise until the area of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir under the occupation of Pakistan ceases to be so occupied.
2.3. Thereafter, on 06.03.2020, Respondent No. 2 issued a Notification under Section 3 of the DELIMITATION ACT , 2002 ( DELIMITA
Exclusion of states from delimitation under impugned notifications is valid; Article 170 provides constitutional freeze until post-2026 census data is published, preventing enforceable right to delim....
Delimitation orders issued under constitutional provisions are immune from judicial review barring exceptional circumstances; challenges to their validity cannot be entertained under Article 226 of t....
Delimitation exercises must adhere strictly to statutory provisions to ensure free and fair elections; failing to do so constitutes a colorable exercise of power.
Delimitation after panchayat reorganization mandates strict adherence to 7-day objection and appeal timelines; curtailment to 3 days and rushed processes invalid; conduct elections using prior valid ....
Amendment to delimitation rule mandating larger units without boundary transgression quashed as manifestly arbitrary, violating uniform population ratio in panchayat constituencies and constitutional....
The court held that notifications for delimitation of Gram Panchayats are administrative acts not subject to judicial review unless proven arbitrary, and non-adherence to internal guidelines does not....
Election - Delimitation notification - Both Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, only rider is in terms of proviso appended to Sections 161 and 122 which bar Election Commission to bring into force d....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.