1. Challenge to notifications conducting delimitation for a Union Territory while excluding certain States, seeking increase in legislative seats under the AP Reorganisation Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1113
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
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Santosh, Adv. Ms. Haritha H, Adv. Ms. Dimple Nagpal, Adv. M/s. Lawfic, AOR Mr. Rao Ranjit, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Ms. Ashita Chawla, Adv. Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv. Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Adv. Mr. Milind Rai, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Santosh, Adv. Ms. Haritha H, Adv. Ms. Dimple Nagpal, Adv. M/s. Lawfic, AOR Mr. Rao Ranjit, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Ms. Ashita Chawla, Adv. Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv. Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Adv. Mr. Milind Rai, Adv.
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 delimitation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Article 14 - Article 170 - Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 - Section 26 - Exclusion of States from delimitation - The Petitioners challenged the notifications, arguing they are discriminatory under Article 14, as they seek parity with Jammu and Kashmir. The court found the election boundaries for Jammu and Kashmir are governed by distinct provisions; the delays in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are constitutionally justified pending census data post-2026. (Paras 1-41)
(B) Delimitation exercise - Legislative framework - The court held the petitioners' claim cannot override constitutional mandates. A legitimate expectation does not create an enforceable right against constitutional provisions. The delimitation process is a legislative function, distinctive for Union Territories (Paras 10-41).
Findings of Court:
The court found no violation of Article 14; delimitation for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana cannot occur before the first census after 2026.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
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 (!) (!) .
What are the rights of the electorates of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana regarding delimitation under Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act?
How to determine if the exclusion of States from delimitation under impugned notifications violates Article 14 of the Constitution?
What is the legal effect of the proviso to Article 170(3) of the Constitution on the delimitation of State Legislative Assemblies?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege arbitrary exclusion and violation of Article 14; Respondents cite the constitutional freeze under Article 170(3) and the distinct legal status of Union Territories. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is subject to Article 170; Article 170(3) bars state delimitation until post-2026 census; Union Territories follow distinct constitutional regimes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
4. Constitutional freeze under Article 170(3) overrides statutory provisions for state delimitation; Union Territories are governed by Article 239A, precluding parity claims with States under Article 14. (Para 15 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 28 , 36 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 41 )
6. Does the constitutional freeze on delimitation apply to all States?
Yes, the proviso to Article 170(3) of the Constitution bars the readjustment of the total number of seats in State Legislative Assemblies and the division of States into territorial constituencies until the publication of census figures following the first census conducted after 2026. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 22 )
7. Can a State claim parity with a Union Territory regarding delimitation exercises under Article 14?
No, States are governed by Article 170, whereas Union Territory legislatures are governed by Parliamentary legislation under Article 239A. This constitutional distinction means they are not equals, and differential treatment based on this classification does not violate the equality clause of Article 14. (Para 13 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
8. Can the doctrine of legitimate expectation compel delimitation in defiance of a constitutional bar?
No, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override express constitutional provisions or statutory bars. It must conform to constitutional mandates, and any expectation for delimitation must yield to the mandatory inhibition laid down under Article 170(3) of the Constitution. (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
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 ( DELIMITATION ACT ), constituting a Delimitation Commission for a period of one year, for delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland. Notably, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana did not find any mention in the 2020 Notification.
2.4. The 2020 Notification was, however, amended in 2021, thereby extending the term of the Delimitation Commission by one more year. More pertinently, this notification also clarified that the scope of the delimitation exercise would be restricted to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir only, thereby excluding the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland.
2.5. The Delimitation Commission passed an order dated 05.05.2022, in respect of the deli
