Supreme Court Reserves Orders On Plea Seeking Delimitation & Increase Of Assembly Seats In Andhra Pradesh, Telangana

The Supreme Court today reserved orders on a plea seeking directions for the Union to set in motion delimitation process for increasing the number of assembly seats in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.Briefly put, the petition, filed by Professor (Dr.) K. Purushottam Reddy, sought directions to the respondents to operationalize Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act. It was 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.The Court called for the responses of the Union of India, States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and the Election Commission of India in 2022.Today, counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was seeking parity with Jammu and Kashmir for the States of AP and Telangana. Pointing to the delimitation exercise undertaken for J&K, he said that the UT's delimitation commission was the only commission to be appointed after the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act came into force.The counsel referred to Election Commission's affidavit, which stated that inclusion/exclusion of states in the notifications of the Delimitation Commission is the responsibility of the Union of India. He highlighted that the Union has not filed a reply in the matter. Agreeing with ECI's stand, Justice Kant said, "the Election Commission is probably right, they can only deal with the mandate given to them".Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union, relied on Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act and submitted that the process will have to wait until the 2026 census. Remarking that delimitation is a humongous exercise which cannot be undertaken overnight, the ASG further stressed that J&K delimitation, which is being pressed into service by the petitioner, was in the case of a Union Territory.The petitioner's counsel objected to the distinction sought to be drawn (between a state and a UT) by submitting that J&K was proposed to be a state. He submitted that in the Article 370 abrogation case, it has categorically been said that statehood of J&K will be restored. When Justice Kant probed how the petitioner can wriggle out of the mandate of Article 170 of the Constitution, the counsel replied that the provision was applicable to J&K as well."Don't be obsessed with J&K, make out your own case that irrespective of constitutional mandate in Article 170...", the judge told the counsel. Thereafter, the counsel pointed out that states, though excluded in a subsequent notification, were included in the notification of 2020 and Article 170 was not cited as a reason to exclude them."There is so much controversy between northern and southern states with respect to delimitation...there is total confusion as to what would be the prospective date of delimitation exercise. In view of that, they appointed a delimitation commission and they did not include State of Andhra Pradesh...Section 26 increased the number of seats but it is not being implemented only for the want of delimitation. There is no prospect as of now that any delimitation exercise even after 2026 will be conducted with regard to controversy relating to southern states...and that is subject to legal challenge also...what was contemplated to be done after every 10 yrs has not been done for the last 50 yrs", the counsel submitted. He also contended that the states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland were included in the prior delimitation notification issued by Union of India, but not Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, even though the north-eastern states were also governed by Article 170.In response to a query by the bench as to whether it was the petitioner' argument that as and when the power is exercised by the Union under the Delimitation Act, it must apply to all states uniformly, the petitioner's counsel answered in the affirmative. "States would include Union Territories also", he added. The counsel also emphasized that Section 2(f) of the Delimitation Act says that States include Union Territories."States of AP and Telangana which came 5 years before J&K notification were not included. In the next notification, north-eastern states were omitted. Reason given for exclusion was not Article 170. I am saying their exclusion was wrong and I should also have been included in that", he argued.In support of the submissions, the counsel placed reliance on Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, where a challenge to the delimitation exercise in J&K was dismissed. He urged that the north-eastern states (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland) were excluded from the subsequent notification not on the ground of Article 170, but due to other reasons (like discrepancies in census data). It was also argued that there...

Supreme Court Reserves Orders On Plea Seeking Delimitation & Increase Of Assembly Seats In Andhra Pradesh, Telangana

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Supreme Court Reserves Orders On Plea Seeking Delimitation & Increase Of Assembly Seats In Andhra Pradesh, Telangana

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers