(A) Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (6 of 2014) , S.26— Constitution of India , Art.170, Art.14— Delimitation of constituencies – Exclusion of States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – Whether discriminatory – Exclusion of States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (or any other State) from the purview of delimitation notification is neither discriminatory nor violative of Art.14 of the Constitution – 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.
In the instant case, exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the scope of the delimitation exercise as envisaged under the Impugned Notification, was challenged as being discriminatory and arbitrary being violative of art 14 of Constitution of India.
Held, exclusion of States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (or any other State) from the purview of delimitation notification was neither discriminatory nor violative of Art.14 of the Constitution .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.
Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act, relied on by the petitioner, is expressly made “subject to” the mandate contained in Article 170 of the Constitution. 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 distinction drawn in notification was 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.
Also, granting relief claimed in petition, would open the floodgates to similar demands from other States, each seeking early delimitation on the ground of parity or administrative convenience.
(B) Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (6 of 2014) , S.26— Constitution of India , Art.170, Art.239A, Art.14— Delimitation of constituencies – Exclusion of States of A P and Telangana – Claim for parity with Jammu and Kashmir – Since, Article 170 has no application to Union Territories, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Petitioner(s), could not 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.
In the instant case, petitioners claimed that omission to conduct delimitation in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, while proceeding with the same in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, constitutes an arbitrary and discriminatory classification which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Held, 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 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.
Jammu and Kashmir, having been reconstituted as a Union Territory under the J and K Reorganisation Act, is not governed by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution, which pertains exclusively to State Legislatures. On the contrary, the governance and composition of Union Territory legislatures are regulated by Parliamentary Legislation enacted under Article 239A of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 170 of the Constitution, including the constitutional freeze on delimitation under clause (3), has no application to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The two States in question and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir operate in distinct constitutional domains, and any delimitation exercise carried out in one cannot serve as a benchmark or ground of comparison for the other. The delimitation undertaken for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be mechanically extended to States bound by the express embargo under Article 170(3) of the Constitution. As such, the invocation of Article 14, in this context, is wholly misplaced and does not withstand legal scrutiny.
(C) Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (6 of 2014) , S.26— Constitution of India , Art.170— Delimitation of constituencies – Doctrine of legitimate Expectation – Applicability of – Plea that failure of government to give effect to S 26 of AP Reorganisation Act has frustrated the legitimate expectation of the electorates of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – Plea was not tenable since in matters governed by express constitutional provisions and legislative policy, doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to claim an enforceable right contrary to the constitutional arrangement – Art 170(3) of the Constitution defers delimitation exercise until after the publication of relevant figures of 2026 census – Any contrary expectation would be eclipsed by this express constitutional limitation
In the instant case, exclusion of States of A P and Telangana from notification under which delimitation of constituencies was undertaken in Jammu and Kashmir was challenged . A plea was raised that electorates of said harbour a legitimate expectation that the Union of India and the Election Commission would undertake delimitation and thereby give effect to the increase in the number of seats as envisaged in the aforesaid provision. Failure to give effect to S 26 of A P Reorganisation Act has frustrated such legitimate expectation.
Held, in matters governed by express constitutional provisions and legislative policy, doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to claim an enforceable right contrary to the constitutional arrangement. Art 170(3) of the Constitution defers delimitation exercise until after the publication of relevant figures of 2026 census . Any contrary expectation would be eclipsed by this express constitutional limitation . Plea was not tenable.
Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override an express provision of law or the Constitution. Said doctrine does not clothe a party with an enforceable right in itself. It operates within the bounds of legality and must necessarily conform to constitutional and statutory mandates.
Any expectation arising from the text of Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be read in conjunction with the clear caveat engrafted in its opening phrase-“subject to the provisions contained in Article 170 of the Constitution.” Once the applicability of Article 170(3) is established, which constitutionally defers the delimitation exercise until after the publication of the relevant figures of the 2026 census, any contrary expectation stands eclipsed by this express constitutional limitation.
[ad_1]
Source link