Supreme Court holds Article 170(3) bars early delimitation for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana; petitions dismissed

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard writ petitions under Article 32 challenging Notification Nos. SO 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021 issued by the Union of India constituting a Delimitation Commission and limiting delimitation to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir while excluding the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The petitioners sought a direction to give effect to Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 by increasing Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

The Court dismissed the petitions as devoid of merit and held that the constitutional proviso in Article 170(3) constituted an overriding bar to any readjustment of seats in State Legislative Assemblies until the publication of the relevant figures of the first census taken after the year 2026. The Court emphasised that Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act was expressly “subject to the provisions contained in Article 170 of the Constitution” and was not self‑executing. The court further held that the delimitation carried out for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir stood on a distinct constitutional footing and did not furnish parity for the States governed by Article 170. The Court noted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation could not be invoked to override an express constitutional bar. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The proviso to Article 170(3) unequivocally and overarchingly provides that it shall not be necessary to readjust the allocation of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State, including the division of each State into territorial constituencies, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published. The Petitioner(s)’ reliance on Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is misplaced, as the provision is not self-executing; it does not, by itself, mandate delimitation but merely declares a legislative framework for it, subject to the peremptory control of Article 170 of the Constitution.”

Background The petitions arose after the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 provided that the number of Assembly seats in successor States would increase to 225 (Andhra Pradesh) and 153 (Telangana) “subject to the provisions contained in Article 170 of the Constitution.” In March 2020 and March 2021 the Union issued notifications under the Delimitation Act constituting a Delimitation Commission which ultimately carried out delimitation for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (increasing assembly constituencies from 83 to 90). The petitioners contended that excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation process was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and that the Union had frustrated the electorates’ legitimate expectation under Section 26 of the Reorganisation Act.

The Union of India and the Election Commission opposed the petitions, relying on the proviso to Article 170(3) which froze readjustment of seats until census figures after 2026 were published, and on the constitutional distinction between States and Union Territories. The Court noted the prior adjudication in Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, wherein this Court upheld the delimitation exercise for Jammu & Kashmir and observed that Article 170 did not apply to the Union Territory legislature governed by Parliamentary legislation under Article 239A. Quoting that decision, the Court recorded that “Article 170 will have no application as far as the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of J&K is concerned.” Applying these principles, the Court found no legal basis to compel readjustment for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and dismissed the petitions; pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 894 (Writ Petition (C) No. 488 of 2022 with Writ Petition (C) No. 718 of 2022) Case Title: K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rao Ranjit, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Counsel (for Election Commission of India)