Supreme Court of India
K. Purushottam Reddy vs Union Of India on 25 July, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
2025 INSC 894 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 488 OF 2022
K. Purushottam Reddy … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 718 OF 2022
JUDGMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
1. These two Writ Petitions, instituted under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, assail the legality of Notification Nos. SO No.
1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 (2020 Notification) and SO 1023(E)
dated 03.03.2021 (2021 Notification) (together referred to as
the Impugned Notifications) issued by the Union of India through
the Ministry of Law and Justice, Respondent No. 2, herein. It is the
case of the Petitioner(s) that, by way of the Impugned Notifications,
a delimitation exercise was conducted for the Union Territory of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in an increase in the number of
Date: 2025.07.25
16:01:09 IST
Reason:
seats in the Legislative Assembly, albeit the States of Andhra
Page 1 of 26
Pradesh and Telangana were excluded in an arbitrary fashion. ThePetitioner(s) consequently seek a direction to Respondent Nos. 1-2
and 5 to similarly increase the number of seats in the Legislative
Assemblies of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in terms
of the applicable statutory provisions.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Before adverting to the issues and contentions raised by the
parties, we deem it appropriate to briefly narrate the factual
background leading to these Writ Petitions.
2.1. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (AP Reorganisation
Act) came into force with effect from 02.06.2014, leading to the
bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two
separate states, namely, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Section
26(1) of the AP Reorganisation Act inter alia provided that “subject
to the provisions contained in Article 170 of the Constitution and
without prejudice of Section 15 of this Act, the number of seats in
the Legislative Assembly of the successor States of Andhra
Pradesh and Telangana shall be increased from 175 and 119
to 225 and 153, respectively, and delimitation of the
constituencies may be determined by the Election Commission in
the manner hereinafter provided.”
Page 2 of 26
2.2. Thereafter, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019
(J&K Reorganisation Act) came into force on 31.10.2019,
bifurcating the then State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union
Territories: (i) Jammu and Kashmir; and (ii) Ladakh. Similar to the
provision under the AP Reorganisation Act, Section 60 of the J&K
Reorganisation Act also provided that “without prejudice to sub-
sections (3) of section 14 of this Act, the number of seats in the
Legislative Assembly of Union territory of Jammu and
Kashmir shall be increased from 107 to 114, and delimitation
of the constituencies may be determined by the Election Commission
in the manner hereinafter provided.” For context, it may be added
that while the J&K Reorganisation Act provided for the total
number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir to be 107, in terms of Section 14 (4) (a)
and (b) of the Act, 24 out of these 107 seats are not to be taken into
account for reckoning the total membership of the Assembly or
delimitation exercise until the area of the Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir under the occupation of Pakistan ceases to be so
occupied.
2.3. Thereafter, on 06.03.2020, Respondent No. 2 issued a Notification
under Section 3 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (Delimitation Act),
constituting a Delimitation Commission for a period of one year, for
Page 3 of 26
delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the States of Assam,
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland. Notably, the States of
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana did not find any mention in the
2020 Notification.
2.4. The 2020 Notification was, however, amended in 2021, thereby
extending the term of the Delimitation Commission by one more
year. More pertinently, this notification also clarified that the scope
of the delimitation exercise would be restricted to the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir only, thereby excluding the States
of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland.
2.5. The Delimitation Commission passed an order dated 05.05.2022,
in respect of the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly
constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It
was determined that for elections to the Legislative Assembly, the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir shall be divided into 90
assembly constituencies (increased from 83 constituencies). As has
already been stated, the remaining 24 seats earmarked for PoK did
not form part of the delimitation process.
2.6. It is significant to note that the validity of the delimitation exercise
carried out in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, under the
Impugned Notification, has already been subjected to judicial
Page 4 of 26
scrutiny before this Court in Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors.1 The petitioners in that matter inter alia
challenged: (i) the provision regarding the increase in the number
of seats in the Legislative Assembly of Union territory of Jammu
and Kashmir; (ii) the modification to the 2020 Notification by
deleting the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and
Nagaland from the purview of the Delimitation Commission; and
(iii) the appointment of the Delimitation Commission allegedly
usurping the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India. It
was therefore contended that the delimitation exercise undertaken
therein was ultra vires to the provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (5)
of Section 60 of the J&K Reorganisation Act; violative of Clause (3)
of Article 170 as well as Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
2.7. This Court did not find any substance in the contentions noted
above and held that: (i) Under Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the
Constitution, Parliament has the power to create new States or
Union territories and to make necessary provisions for their
governance, including representation in Parliament and State
Legislatures. In exercise of these powers, the J&K Reorganisation
Act created two new Union Territories and validly assigned the task
of delimitation to the Commission under the Delimitation Act; (ii)
1
Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 11 SCC 432.
Page 5 of 26
The constitutional status of the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir is distinct from that of the four North-Eastern States
excluded from the scope of delimitation by way of the 2021
Notification. Unlike the latter, Sections 4 and 9 of the Delimitation
Act stood amended for Jammu and Kashmir to permit delimitation
based on the 2011 Census. As there was no such amendment for
the North-Eastern States, there cannot be a challenge regarding
violation of Article 14, as it would amount to treating two unequals,
equally.
2.8. However, the 2020 and 2021 Notifications have been impugned
before us once again—this time, not on the basis of the
constitutional reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, but because
a similar delimitation exercise has not been undertaken in the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The challenge is thus
premised on a claim of parity. According to the Petitioners, the
exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the
scope of delimitation under the Impugned Notifications is
discriminatory and undermines the statutory mandate envisaged
under the AP Reorganisation Act.
B. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
3. Mr. Rao Ranjit, learned counsel for the Petitioner(s), argued that
the non-inclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Page 6 of 26
in the delimitation process initiated through the 2020 Notification
and restricting the delimitation exercise only for the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir is arbitrary, discriminatory and thus,
unconstitutional.
4. Mr. Ranjit canvassed the following grounds in support of his
submissions:
(a) Excluding the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from
the scope of the delimitation exercise as contemplated under
the 2020 Notification suffers from the vice of intelligible
differentia and is thus violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
(b) The Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir was the first Commission to be appointed
after the AP Reorganisation Act came into force. Not only do
the electorates of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
have a legitimate expectation of delimitation, but Respondent
Nos. 1-2 and 5 also have a constitutional responsibility to give
effect to Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act, which they
have failed to fulfil.
(c) The subsequent omission of the States of Assam, Arunachal
Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland from the delimitation
Page 7 of 26
process, and limiting the exercise to the Union Territory ofJammu and Kashmir, also amounts to unreasonable
classification, which is per se arbitrary and discriminatory.
(d) The power under the Delimitation Act must be exercised
uniformly by the Union of India. In other words, if the
delimitation was undertaken for the Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir, there could be no plausible justification for
denying the same to the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana.
C. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
5. Conversely, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India,
along with Mr. KM Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, representing Respondent Nos. 1-2 have opposed the subject
Writ Petitions, urging that there exists no enforceable right
available to the Petitioner(s) and, as such, these Writ Petitions are
wholly misconceived and erroneous.
6. Their submissions may be summarised as follows:
(a) In terms of the provisos to Articles 82 and 170 of the
Constitution, no readjustment of seats or division of States
into territorial constituencies can be undertaken until the
relevant data from the first census conducted after 2026 is
Page 8 of 26
published. Consequently, no delimitation exercise can beundertaken in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
prior to the availability of such post-2026 census data. In light
of the clear constitutional bar, the relief sought by the
Petitioner(s) is not maintainable and devoid of merit.
(b) The Constitutional and Statutory arrangements governing the
delimitation of Union Territories stand on a distinct legal
footing and cannot be equated with that applicable to the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Jammu and
Kashmir, having been reconstituted as a Union Territory under
the J&K Reorganisation Act, is governed by a separate
constitutional provision. Consequently, any delimitation
exercise undertaken for the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir, including through the Impugned Notifications,
emanates from powers referrable to Article 239A of the
Constitution that are materially different in scope and
application in comparison to those pertaining to the State
Legislatures under Article 170 of the Constitution and other
relevant provisions. The claim of parity, therefore, is legally
unsustainable, as it overlooks the essential constitutional
distinction between a Union Territory and a State, both in
terms of legislative competence and institutional structure.
Page 9 of 26
(c) This Court in Haji Abdul Gani Khan (supra), while upholding
the delimitation exercise conducted in Jammu and Kashmir,
explicitly held that Article 170 will have no application insofar
as the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir is concerned, as the said provision only deals
with State Legislatures.
7. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Election Commission of India (Respondent No. 5), submitted that
the Impugned Notifications have been issued by the Union of India,
constituting the Delimitation Commission, as well as the scope of
its mandate. The Election Commission, therefore, has no
jurisdiction to opine on the vires or validity of these notifications.
The Election Commission’s role is limited to facilitating the
implementation of the delimitation process as prescribed.
8. Nonetheless, the Election Commission has aligned with the
position taken by the Union of India that, by virtue of the proviso
to Clause (3) of Article 170 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.
Page 10 of 26
D. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
9. Having traced the arc of relevant facts and the sequence of events,
weighed the rival submissions, and after perusing the material on
record, we find that the following key issues arise for determination:
(a) Whether the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana (or any other State), from the scope of delimitation
under the Impugned Notifications and limiting it only to the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
(b) Whether the failure of the Union of India to give effect to
Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act has frustrated the
legitimate expectation of the electorates of these States,
thereby giving rise to a justiciable cause of action?
E. ANALYSIS
E.1. Whether the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana (or any other State), from the Impugned Notifications is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
10. At the heart of these proceedings lies the contention of the
Petitioner(s) that the action of the Union of India, in excluding the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the scope of the
delimitation exercise as envisaged under the Impugned
Page 11 of 26
Notifications, is arbitrary, discriminatory and constitutionally
impermissible.
11. The Petitioner(s) have placed specific reliance on Section 26 of the
AP Reorganisation Act, which, according to them, unambiguously
stipulates that the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of
the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana “shall be
increased” from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153, respectively. It was
thus argued that, despite this statutory mandate, no steps have
been taken by the Union of India to notify the increased seats. The
resultant inaction allegedly defeats both the legislative intent and
the legitimate expectations of the electorate in the two States,
thereby giving rise to an enforceable constitutional and statutory
claim.
12. In opposition, the Union of India, as well as the Election
Commission, have firmly contended that the Petitioner(s)’ claim is
untenable in view of the overriding constitutional scheme. It is their
case that Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act expressly begins
with the words “subject to the provisions contained in Article 170 of
the Constitution,” and thus must yield to the constitutional embargo
imposed under the proviso to Article 170(3). This proviso halts any
readjustment of seats in State Legislative Assemblies until the
publication of census data following the first census conducted
Page 12 of 26
after the year 2026. The Respondents have accordingly argued that
the relief sought by the Petitioner(s) stems from a misreading of the
statutory provision—one that isolates it from its constitutional
context and fails to account for the mandatory inhibition laid down
under Article 170(3) of the Constitution.
13. The Respondents have further contended that the Petitioner(s)’
attempt to draw a comparison with the delimitation carried out in
the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is fundamentally
flawed. It was asserted that Jammu and Kashmir, following its
reorganisation, is governed not by Article 170 but by Article 239A
of the Constitution, as applicable to the Union Territories. The
delimitation exercise undertaken for Jammu and Kashmir thus
derives its legitimacy from an entirely different constitutional
framework, and no claim of parity is sustainable under law.
14. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, we deem it appropriate
first to extract the relevant provision of the Constitution and of the
AP Reorganisation Act:
Article 170 of the Constitution:
“170. Composition of the Legislative Assemblies
(1) Subject to the provisions of Article 333, the Legislative
Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than five
hundred, and not less than sixty, members chosen by direct
election from territorial constituencies in the State.
(2) For the purposes of clause (1), each state shall be divided
into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio
between the population of each constituency and the
Page 13 of 26
number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be
the same throughout the State.
Explanation.–In this Clause, the expression “population”
means the population as ascertained at the last preceding
census of which the relevant figures have been published:
Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last
preceding census of which the relevant figures have been
published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census
taken after the year 2026 have been published, be
construed as a reference to the 2001 census.
(3) Upon the completion of each census, the total number of
seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the
division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be
readjusted by such authority and in such manner as
Parliament may by law determine:
Provided that such readjustment shall not affect
representation in the Legislative Assembly until the
dissolution of the then existing Assembly:
Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect
from such date as the President may, by order, specify and
until such readjustment takes effect, any election to the
Legislative Assembly may be held on the basis of the
territorial constituencies existing before such readjustment:
Provided also that until the relevant figures for the
first census taken after the year 2026 have been
published, it shall not be necessary to Readjust-
(i) the total number of seats in the Legislative
Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis
of the 1971 census; and
(ii) the division of such State into territorial
constituencies as may be readjusted on the basis
of the 2001 census, under this clause”.
****
Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act:
“26. Delimitation of Constituencies
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in article 170
of the Constitution and without prejudice to section 15 of
this Act, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly
of the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana shall be increased from 175 and 119 to 225
and 153, respectively, and delimitation of the
constituencies may be determined by the Election
Commission in the manner hereinafter provided…”
****
[Emphasis Supplied]
Page 14 of 26
15. A plain and harmonious reading of the statutory and constitutional
provisions makes it evident that Section 26 of the AP
Reorganisation Act is expressly made “subject to” the mandate
contained in Article 170 of the Constitution. This qualifying phrase
cannot be read as surplusage and must be given full legal effect.
This prefatory clause is indeed non obstante and limits the
independent operation of Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act.
Any other construction of Section 26 would fall foul of both the
language and the conception of Article 170 of the Constitution.
16. 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 Petitioner(s)’ reliance on Section 26 of the AP
Reorganisation Act is misplaced, as the provision is not self-
executing; it does not, by itself, mandate delimitation but merely
declares a legislative framework for it, subject to the peremptory
control of Article 170 of the Constitution.
17. The Petitioner(s) have not placed on record any legal or factual basis
to show how the constitutional precepts can be outbalanced,
waived, or read down in the context of Andhra Pradesh and
Page 15 of 26
Telangana, especially when such an exception would amount to
impermissible classification in the face of a uniform constitutional
command applicable to all States.
18. 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 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.
19. 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. Permitting delimitation in some States while
denying it to others in comparable circumstances would breed
Page 16 of 26
inequality. 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.
20. 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.
21. Furthermore, the delimitation process is, by design, a legislative
and executive function. If this Court were to compel such an
exercise through judicial fiat, it would likely be construed as an
interference in the policy-making prerogative of the Executive. The
constitutional edifice carefully balances institutional roles, and any
disruption of that equilibrium would undermine both the legitimacy
and functional integrity of the democratic process.
22. In view of the foregoing analysis, 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. The demand for immediate
delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana runs contrary to
both the letter and spirit of the constitutional design. The
Page 17 of 26
challenge, therefore, fails to establish any legally sustainable
ground for intervention by this Court.
E.1.1. Whether the Petitioner(s) can claim parity with the
delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir?
23. Notwithstanding the constitutional bar discussed above, we have
also carefully assessed the submission advanced by the
Petitioner(s) that the 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.
24. This submission seems legally untenable to us as it overlooks the
well-settled constitutional distinctions that exist between the
governance of States and Union Territories. The aforementioned
plea of discrimination fails to appreciate that differential treatment,
when founded upon constitutional classifications, does not
automatically violate the equality clause contained in Article 14.
25. The distinction drawn by the Respondents is not only rational but
finds explicit recognition in the constitutional architecture. Jammu
and Kashmir, having been reconstituted as a Union Territory under
the J&K Reorganisation Act, is not governed by the provisions of
Page 18 of 26
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.
26. As a necessary corollary, 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. In fact, this precise legal question has
already been answered by this Court in Haji Abdul Gani Khan
(supra), wherein the validity of the delimitation conducted in the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the
Notifications under scrutiny herein was upheld. In that decision,
this Court, in no uncertain terms, held:
31. “Hence, as far as the Legislative Assembly of the Union
territory of J&K is concerned, Article 170 will have no
application as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI
which deals with only the State Legislature. It has no
application to the Legislatures of Union Territories.
The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the
concerned Union Territories will be governed by the
law made by the Parliament in accordance
with Article 239A and not by the provisions of
Chapter III of Part VI. As Article 170 is not applicable to
the Legislature of the Union Territory of J & K, the main
thrust of the argument that certain provisions of the J&K
Reorganisation Act and actions taken thereunder are in
conflict with Article 170 and in particular Clause (3) thereof
is clearly misconceived and deserves to be rejected.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Page 19 of 26
27. Given the express adjudication rendered by this Court in Haji
Abdul Gani Khan (supra), there remains no ambiguity as to the
inapplicability of Article 170 to the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. It logically follows that the Petitioner(s) cannot seek parity
between the position of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
and that of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the latter
being governed by the constitutional scheme applicable to States.
28. 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.
29. Accordingly, in light of the settled position of law and the
constitutionally distinct treatment accorded to States and Union
Territories, we find no merit in the contention that the exclusion of
the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the scope of the
delimitation exercise under the Impugned Notification is arbitrary,
discriminatory, or violative of Article 14.
Page 20 of 26
E.2. Whether the failure of the Union of India to give effect Section
26 of the AP Reorganisation Act has frustrated the legitimate
expectation of the electorates of the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana?
30. The second limb of contention advanced on behalf of the
Petitioner(s) is that, independent of the legal enforceability of
Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act, the electorates of the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana 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.
31. It was argued that the language employed in Section 26, coupled
with the clear legislative intent to ensure proportional and adequate
representation in the newly formed successor States, gave rise to
an expectation that the Union of India would act in furtherance of
that object within a reasonable time frame. The Petitioner(s)
contended that such expectation constitutes a valuable interest
that the Union Government is bound to consider and cannot defeat
arbitrarily or indefinitely.
32. This submission has, however, been strongly rebutted by the Union
of India. It is their case that the doctrine of legitimate expectation,
while recognised in administrative law, is necessarily subject to
Page 21 of 26
constitutional limitations. In particular, it was contended that any
expectation for delimitation and an increase in legislative seats
must yield to the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) of the
Constitution.
33. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a well-recognised principle
in administrative law, rooted in the ideals of fairness, non-
arbitrariness, and transparency in executive action. It arises when
a public authority, either through a consistent past practice, an
express promise, or a statutory policy, creates an expectation in the
mind of an individual or class of persons that a certain course of
action will be followed. While such expectation does not amount to
a legal right in the strict sense, courts have consistently held that
it may nonetheless warrant judicial protection where its denial
results in manifest unfairness or arbitrariness, thereby violating
the fundamental principles of natural justice.
34. However, it is equally well-settled that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot override an express provision of law or the
Constitution. It must be borne in mind that the expectation must
be legitimate, in the sense that it is not only reasonable but also
legally sustainable within the structure of the governing statute or
constitutional scheme. In the event of any conflict between an
expectation and the existing legal framework, the expectation has
Page 22 of 26
to run hand in hand with the legal intent and not against it. The
doctrine of legitimate expectation is not a rigid rule and must be
conceded where a superseding public interest or a statutory or
constitutional bar exists. Thus, while legitimate expectation may
guide how discretionary powers are exercised, it cannot be invoked
to compel an authority to act contrary to a binding legal or
constitutional command.
35. Keeping this in view, we find substance in the objection raised by
the Union of India. It is trite law that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, while forming an integral part of the jurisprudence on
fairness in administrative action, 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.
36. In the present case, 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
Page 23 of 26
census, any contrary expectation stands eclipsed by this express
constitutional limitation.
37. Thus, while the sentiment underlying the claim of the Petitioner(s)
may not be without foundation—particularly given the passage of
over a decade since the enactment of the AP Reorganisation Act—
the legal threshold for invoking the doctrine of legitimate
expectation has not been met. The Petitioner(s) cannot, in law,
claim a right to delimitation in defiance of a constitutional
mandate, nor can they invoke administrative fairness to defeat a
clear constitutional prescription. In light of the above, we are
unable to hold that the electorates of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana possess an enforceable legitimate expectation that can
give rise to a justiciable cause of action under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
F. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
38. In light of the foregoing discussion, 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
Page 24 of 26
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.
39. 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.
40. We have also found no merit in the Petitioner(s)’ reliance on the
doctrine of legitimate expectation. In matters governed by express
constitutional provisions and legislative policy, this doctrine cannot
be invoked to claim an enforceable right contrary to the
constitutional arrangement.
Page 25 of 26
41. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
42. Ordered accordingly.
………..………………… J.
[SURYA KANT]
……………………………..………………… J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI
DATED: 25.07.2025
Page 26 of 26