Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 488 & 718 of 2022
Date of Judgement: 25 July 2025
Case Title: K. Purushottam Reddy vs. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Background
• The petitions challenged the legality of two Notifications (SO 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021), which initiated the delimitation exercise only for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
• Petitioners contended that, as per Section 26(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the number of seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Legislative Assemblies should be increased, similar to J&K, and that the Centre failed to implement this.
Key Issues
1. Whether the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (or any other State), from the scope of delimitation under the Impugned Notifications and limiting it only to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the failure of the Union of India to give effect to Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act has frustrated the legitimate expectation of the electorates of these States, thereby giving rise to a justiciable cause of action?
Arguments
Petitioners:
• Exclusion violates Article 14 due to arbitrary classification.
• Union has a duty to implement Section 26 and effect seat increase.
• Cited legitimate expectations of the electorate in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
Respondents (Union of India & Election Commission):
• Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution expressly prohibits readjustment of seats in States’ Legislative Assemblies until after the publication of the first census figures post-2026.
• J&K, as a Union Territory, is under a different constitutional regime (Article 239A); hence, parity cannot be claimed.
• Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is explicitly subject to Article 170.
Analysis & Findings
• Constitutional Hierarchy: Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is subject to Article 170, which bars any delimitation/readjustment of seats for State Legislative Assemblies until after the next census following 2026.
• No Parity with J&K: J&K, as a Union Territory, is governed by Article 239A and not Article 170. The constitutional framework for Union Territories is distinct from that of States. Precedent in Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India reaffirmed this distinction.
• Legitimate Expectation: Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override explicit constitutional provisions. No enforceable right arises for delimitation against Article 170’s mandate.
• Equality Principle: Differentiation in treatment between States and Union Territories is constitutionally legitimate and not violative of Article 14.
Court’s Decision
• The writ petitions are dismissed.
• The constitutional bar under Article 170(3) prohibits any delimitation for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana before the relevant census after 2026.
• The increase in Assembly seats per Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act can only occur after the constitutional embargo is lifted.
• No violation of Article 14 or legitimate expectation is made out.
Conclusion:
No delimitation or increase in legislative seats will occur in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana before the publication of census figures after 2026. The distinction between States and Union Territories under constitutional law is valid and justifiable. The impugned Notifications are constitutionally sound and do not violate principles of equality or statutory mandate. The petitions are without merit and consequently dismissed.
