It would open floodgates, says SC; dismisses plea for delimitation in AP, Telangana
Noting that it would open floodgates of litigation, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking a fresh delimitation exercise to be conducted in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to increase the number of Assembly seats in the two states from 175 and 119 respectively.
A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant rejected a petition filed by one K. Purushottam Reddy who alleged that two states were discrimination against on the issue of delimitation compared to Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Bench, which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh, ruled that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was not arbitrary or discriminatory and hence constitutional.
The top court said Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 was subject to Article 170 of the Constitution, which said delimitation exercise could be conducted only after the first census after 2026.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Kant said, “What is even more compelling is the inevitable consequence that would follow if the reliefs sought in these Writ Petitions were to be granted, it would open the floodgates to similar demands from other States, each seeking an early delimitation on the ground of parity or administrative convenience. Granting such relief in contravention of the constitutional timeline provided under Article 170(3) of the Constitution would not only destabilise the uniform electoral framework envisaged by the Constitution but also blur the clear demarcation between constitutional prescription and political discretion.”
“It would not be far-fetched to anticipate that granting the reliefs sought in the present Writ Petitions would prompt unabated challenges from other similarly situated regions. In particular, the four North-Eastern States—Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland—which were expressly excluded from the scope of delimitation by way of the 2021 Notification, may justifiably question the legitimacy and fairness of such selective implementation,” the Bench said.
Permitting delimitation in some states while denying it to others in comparable circumstances would breed inequality, it said, adding, “This could open the door to a spate of litigation, thereby unsettling the finality and uniformity that the Constitution seeks to preserve in matters of electoral readjustment.”
The top court said, “It is evident that the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the purview of the delimitation process under the Impugned Notifications does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or discrimination.
“The distinction drawn is firmly anchored in the constitutional structure, particularly the proviso to Article 170 (3), which expressly bars any readjustment in the total number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of States until the first census after the year 2026. The legislative and constitutional framework thus provides a clear and rational basis for such tailored administrative distinction,” Justice Kant wrote.
“Article 170 has no application to Union Territories, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Petitioner(s), therefore, cannot claim parity between the position of Jammu and Kashmir and that of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which remain subject to the constitutional scheme governing States,” the top court said.
“The delimitation exercise carried out in Jammu and Kashmir—being governed by a distinct constitutional and statutory regime—cannot be analogically extended to States that are explicitly bound by the constitutional restraint imposed under Article 170(3). The Impugned Notifications thus do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution,” it held.
It dismissed Reddy’s petition seeking directions to the Centre to operationalise Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act which deals with delimitation of the assembly constituencies in both the states.
Reddy has contended that delimiting the Assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, created an unreasonable classification and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
India