Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Freeze On Lok Sabha Seat Allocation Based On 1971 Census

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Plea Challenging Delimitation Amendments, Suggests Representation to Authorities

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments governing the delimitation of Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies, while suggesting that the petitioner first make a representation to the competent authorities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the petition, which questioned the continued reliance on the 1971 and 2001 Census figures for delimitation. The petitioner also challenged Articles 55, 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution to the extent that they permit reliance on population figures from the 1971 and/or 2001 Census.

The plea further assailed the Election Commission's ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, contending that the exercise was being undertaken without a prior delimitation based on the latest Census.

The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 extended the freeze on the allocation of Lok Sabha and State Assembly seats among States based on the 1971 Census until the first Census conducted after 2026. It, however, permitted the readjustment of territorial constituencies on the basis of the 1991 Census without altering the number of seats allotted to each State. The 87th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 subsequently substituted references to the 1991 Census with the 2001 Census, enabling the delimitation of constituency boundaries on the basis of the 2001 Census while retaining the freeze on the allocation of seats among States.

Appearing in person, the petitioner argued that India, as a representative democracy, ought to base political representation on the latest population figures. He contended that the continued reliance on outdated Census data meant that nearly 70% of Indians born after 1971 were effectively denied equitable representation.

Referring to rapidly growing urban centres such as Noida, Gurugram and Mohali, the petitioner submitted that these regions had witnessed exponential population growth while parliamentary representation remained frozen, thereby diluting the value of votes in densely populated constituencies.

The Bench, however, questioned the legal basis of the challenge.

"We appreciate that if 70% is excluded, then what kind of delimitation? But what is the basis? Right to vote has nothing to do with delimitation," CJI Surya Kant observed.

When the petitioner identified himself as being from Jhajjar, the CJI remarked that a person's right to vote was not affected merely because a village fell within one constituency or another.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that a person could vote from any constituency where he was enrolled, irrespective of domicile. The CJI added that a person could also contest elections.

The petitioner argued that the increase in population had diluted the value of his vote and relied on Article 81 of the Constitution, which provides that the ratio between the population and the number of seats allotted to each State should, as far as practicable, remain the same. According to him, the constitutional amendments had overridden this principle by permitting continued reliance on the 1971 and 2001 Census figures.

Justice Bagchi responded that while the vote may be diluted against the overall population, "the value is not diluted vis-a-vis the States." He observed that the constitutional framework maintained parity among States and did not adopt an asymmetrical approach to democracy or federalism.

The Bench was not inclined to entertain the plea.

CJI Surya Kant observed that the issues raised were matters that the appropriate authorities or the legislature could consider.

"Make some representation to the authorities. Representatives of the people might think of amending it the way you want," the CJI told the petitioner.

When the petitioner argued that only the Supreme Court could strike down the constitutional amendments, the CJI suggested that he first submit a representation to the authorities, observing, "We will not say we are dismissing the petition."

The petitioner thereafter sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the Court allowed.

Case :NISHANT KHATRI Vs UNION OF INDIA  | W.P.(C) No. 737/2026