Plea For Early Delimitation In States Before Post-2026 Census Can't Be Entertained : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that Article 170 of the Constitution places an embargo on delimitation exercise for any state until relevant data from the first post-2026 census becomes available. "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...we hold that the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) of the Constitution serves as a bar on any delimitation exercise concerning the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, or any other State."A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while rejecting a plea seeking delimitation exercise for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, akin to that notified for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.The petitioner 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. They also relied on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. On the other hand, the Union of India, relying on the provisos to Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution, argued that no delimitation exercise could be undertaken in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until the relevant data from the first census conducted after 2026 is published. The Election Commission took a similar stand, stating that as per the proviso to Article 170(3) of the Constitution, there exists a "constitutional freeze on the readjustment of seats in State Legislative Assemblies" until the publication of census figures following the first census conducted after the year 2026.After hearing the parties, the Court concluded that the demand for immediate delimitation exercise for States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana ran contrary to "both the letter and spirit of the constitutional design".The Court was of the view that granting the relief sought could open floodgates to similar demands by other states, seeking early delimitation exercise 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.""Permitting such isolated departures from the constitutional embargo would also amount to an impermissible deviation from the equality principle embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution, and would amount to a facially discriminatory practice without any valid classification", the Court added. The Court also noted that the AP Reorganisation Act was subject to the Constitutional provisions. Case Title: K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 488/2022 (and connected case)Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 741Click here to read the judgment

Plea For Early Delimitation In States Before Post-2026 Census Can't Be Entertained : Supreme Court

Debby Jain

Tags