The Supreme Court has reserved its order on a petition that seeks directions for the Union Government to initiate the delimitation process and increase the number of assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as outlined in Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh. The petition, filed by Professor (Dr.) K. Purushottam Reddy, argued that only Jammu and Kashmir had undergone delimitation, while Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were left out, despite legal provisions. This, the petitioner argued, creates an unfair classification and is unconstitutional.
“The Election Commission is probably right, they can only deal with the mandate given to them,” observed Justice Kant.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Courts Can Depart from Employee Compensation Schedule to Assess Functional Disability
The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the exercise done in J&K should also be applied to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He pointed out that the Election Commission's affidavit made it clear that the decision to include or exclude states lies with the Union Government, which has not yet submitted its response.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union, argued that any such delimitation must wait until after the 2026 census. He clarified that J&K’s case was different since it is a Union Territory, and therefore treated separately.
“Delimitation is a massive exercise that cannot be undertaken overnight,” ASG Nataraj told the Court.
The petitioner challenged this view, stating that J&K is likely to regain statehood, as also acknowledged in the Article 370 abrogation judgment. The counsel insisted that the constitutional provision in Article 170 should not prevent the implementation of Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act.
“Don't be obsessed with J&K, make out your own case,” Justice Kant advised the petitioner’s counsel during arguments.
The counsel also noted that other states like Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland were initially included in the 2020 delimitation notification, even though they too are governed by Article 170. However, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were excluded without proper reasoning.
In response to the Court’s query, the petitioner’s counsel confirmed that the delimitation process should be uniformly applicable across all states and Union Territories. He referred to Section 2(f) of the Delimitation Act, which includes Union Territories within the definition of "States".
“States of AP and Telangana came 5 years before J&K’s notification, yet they were left out,” he argued.
The counsel also relied on a past case, Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, to support the point that exclusion from delimitation lacked constitutional justification. He added that reasons like census discrepancies were given for excluding northeastern states, not Article 170.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules: Contractual Service Must Count Towards Pension Once Employee Is Regularised
ASG Nataraj, in rebuttal, highlighted Article 82 of the Constitution which states that delimitation based on updated census data can only occur after 2026. He emphasized that until such data is available, the current number of assembly seats cannot be changed.
“There is no enforceable right at present, due to the constitutional bar under Articles 82 and 170,” ASG submitted.
Background
The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, created the state of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh. Section 26 of this Act states that the legislative assembly seats for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would increase from 175 to 225 and 119 to 153 respectively. However, Article 170(3) of the Constitution bars any seat readjustment until after the first census post-2026.
In 2020, the Union Government initiated a delimitation exercise for Jammu and Kashmir and some northeastern states. Later, a notification excluded the northeastern states from this exercise. However, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were not included at any stage, despite legal provisions allowing for an increase in assembly seats.
The central government had clarified in Parliament that unless Article 170 is amended to align with Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act, the increase in assembly seats cannot proceed.
“Unless and until Article 170 of the Constitution is amended, the number of seats cannot be increased,” the Minister of Home Affairs stated in a written reply in 2022.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether the Centre must initiate delimitation and increase assembly seats in these states before the 2026 census, or if the constitutional bar continues to prevent it.
Case Title: K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 488/2022 (and connected case)
