K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (25/07/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Writ petitions under Article 32 sought a direction to delimit and increase Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, on parity with the delimitation carried out for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court dismissed them: Section 26 is expressly subject to Article 170, whose proviso to clause (3) freezes readjustment of State Assembly seats until figures of the first census after 2026 are published; Article 170 does not apply to Union Territory legislatures, so no parity with Jammu and Kashmir arises; and legitimate expectation cannot override a constitutional bar.

Issues

Whether excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (or any other State) from the delimitation exercise under the 2020 and 2021 Notifications, which was confined to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Whether Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 obliges the Union to increase the Assembly seats of the two States notwithstanding the proviso to Article 170(3) of the Constitution.
Whether the electorates of the two States have a legitimate expectation of delimitation that gives rise to a justiciable cause of action under Article 32.

Provisions considered

Article 170 (in particular the proviso to clause (3)), Constitution of IndiaThe Court read the third proviso to Article 170(3), under which it is not necessary to readjust the total seats of each State Assembly (as readjusted on the 1971 census) or the division into constituencies (on the 2001 census) until the figures of the first census after 2026 are published, as a uniform constitutional command binding all States and barring any delimitation for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until then. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 22, 38)
Section 26(1), Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014Section 26(1) provides that, subject to Article 170 and without prejudice to Section 15, the seats of the successor States shall be increased from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153. The Court held the opening words 'subject to the provisions contained in article 170' cannot be treated as surplusage; the provision is not self-executing, merely declares a framework for delimitation, and yields to the embargo in the proviso to Article 170(3). (¶¶ 2.1, 11, 14, 15, 16, 36)
Article 239A, Constitution of IndiaLegislatures of Union Territories, including Jammu and Kashmir after the 2019 reorganisation, are governed by parliamentary law made under Article 239A and not by Chapter III of Part VI; as held in Haji Abdul Gani Khan, Article 170 and its delimitation freeze have no application to the Union Territory's Assembly, so the two States cannot claim parity with it. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 39)
Article 14, Constitution of IndiaDifferential treatment founded on constitutional classifications does not violate Article 14; States and Union Territories operate in distinct constitutional domains. Conversely, granting delimitation to two States in breach of the uniform Article 170(3) timeline would itself be an impermissible deviation from equality and a facially discriminatory practice without valid classification. (¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29)
Sections 14 and 60, Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019Section 60 provided for an increase in the seats of the Union Territory's Assembly and for delimitation by the Election Commission; the validity of the resulting delimitation had already been upheld in Haji Abdul Gani Khan, and the Court relied on that decision to hold the Union Territory's regime distinct from that of the States. (¶¶ 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 26)
Section 3 (and Sections 4 and 9 as amended for Jammu and Kashmir), Delimitation Act, 2002The 2020 Notification under Section 3 constituted a Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir and four North-Eastern States; the 2021 Notification confined it to Jammu and Kashmir. The Court noted that Sections 4 and 9 had been amended for Jammu and Kashmir to permit delimitation on the 2011 Census, a distinction already accepted in Haji Abdul Gani Khan. (¶¶ 2.3, 2.4, 2.7)

Held

Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is expressly made subject to Article 170 of the Constitution; the qualifying phrase must be given full effect and limits the independent operation of the section. The provision is not self-executing and does not by itself mandate delimitation; it merely declares a legislative framework subject to the peremptory control of Article 170. (¶¶ 15, 16)
The proviso to Article 170(3) bars any readjustment of the total seats of State Legislative Assemblies and their division into constituencies until the figures of the first census taken after 2026 are published. This is a uniform constitutional command applicable to all States; it cannot be waived or read down for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and it bars any delimitation exercise for those or any other State until then. (¶¶ 16, 17, 22, 38)
Granting early delimitation to particular States in contravention of the Article 170(3) timeline would open the floodgates to parity claims from other States (including the four North-Eastern States excluded by the 2021 Notification), breed inequality, destabilise the uniform electoral framework and blur the line between constitutional prescription and political discretion; such isolated departures would themselves offend Article 14. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Delimitation is by design a legislative and executive function; compelling it by judicial fiat would interfere with the policy-making prerogative of the Executive and disturb the constitutional balance of institutional roles. (¶ 21)
Union Territory legislatures are governed by parliamentary law under Article 239A, not by Chapter III of Part VI; Article 170, including the freeze in clause (3), has no application to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Haji Abdul Gani Khan). States and Union Territories operate in distinct constitutional domains, so delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir cannot serve as a benchmark, and the plea of discrimination under Article 14 is misplaced: differential treatment founded on constitutional classifications does not violate the equality clause. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39)
The doctrine of legitimate expectation, though rooted in fairness and non-arbitrariness, does not confer an enforceable right in itself and cannot override an express provision of law or the Constitution; an expectation must be legally sustainable within the governing scheme and must yield where a statutory or constitutional bar or superseding public interest exists. Any expectation from Section 26 is eclipsed by Article 170(3), so the electorates of the two States have no enforceable legitimate expectation giving rise to a justiciable cause under Article 32, even though the sentiment behind the claim, after over a decade since the 2014 Act, is not without foundation. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40)

Result

Writ Petitions dismissed as devoid of merit; the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation under the 2020 and 2021 Notifications is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.