K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1579 : 2025 INSC 894

                          K. Purushottam Reddy
                                     v.
                          Union of India and Ors.
                     (Writ Petition (C) No. 488 of 2022)
                                  25 July 2025
    [Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       (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 Art.14
       of the Constitution; (b) Whether the failure of the Union of India
       to give effect to s.26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
       2014 has frustrated the legitimate expectation of the electorates
       of these States, thereby giving rise to a justiciable cause of action.

                                   Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Arts.14, 170 – Andhra Pradesh
       Reorganisation Act, 2014 – s.26 – Notification Nos. SO No.
       1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021 –
       The Petitioner(s) have placed specific reliance on s.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 – 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
       Art.14 of the Constitution:
       Held: 1. 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


* Author
1580                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    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
    u/Art.170(3) of the Constitution – As such, the invocation of Art.14,
    in this context, is wholly misplaced and does not withstand legal
    scrutiny – There is 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. [Paras 28 and 29]
    2. A plain and harmonious reading of the statutory and constitutional
    provisions makes it evident that s.26 of the AP Reorganisation Act
    is expressly made “subject to” the mandate contained in Art.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 s.26 of the AP Reorganisation Act – Any other construction of
    s.26 would fall foul of both the language and the conception of
    Art.170 of the Constitution. [Para 15]
    3. 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. [Para 21]
    4. The constitutional mandate u/Art.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 challenge, therefore, fails to establish any legally sustainable
    ground for intervention by this Court. [Para 22]

    Constitution of India – Arts.14, 170 – Andhra Pradesh
    Reorganisation Act, 2014 – s.26 – Notification Nos. SO No.
    1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021 –
    Whether the failure of the Union of India to give effect s.26
    of the AP Reorganisation Act has frustrated the legitimate
    expectation of the electorates of the States of Andhra Pradesh
    and Telangana:
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                                1581

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


     Held: 1. 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.
     [Para 35]
     2. In the present case, any expectation arising from the text of s.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 Art.170 of
     the Constitution” – Once the applicability of Art.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. [Para 36]
     3. 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. [Para 37]

     Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation:
     Held: 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. [Para 33]

     Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation –
     Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation override an express
     provision of law or the Constitution:
1582                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Held: It is 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 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. [Para 34]

                             Case Law Cited
    Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2023] 5
    SCR 503 : (2023) 11 SCC 432 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
    Constitution of India; Delimitation Act, 2002; Andhra Pradesh
    Reorganisation Act, 2014; Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation
    Act, 2019.

                            List of Keywords
    Exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana;
    Delimitation exercise; Scope of delimitation; Article 14 of
    Constitution; Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
    2014; Doctrine of legitimate expectation; Legislative and executive
    function; Policy-making prerogative of Executive; Letter and spirit
    of constitutional design; Differential treatment.

                           Case Arising From
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of
    2022
    Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
    With
    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 718 of 2022
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1583

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Rao Ranjit, M/s. Lawfic.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Kanu Agrawal, Anuj
     Udupa, Ms. Prerna Dhal, Debashish Bharuka, Vinayak Sharma,
     Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Prateek Kumar, Amarpal Singh Dua,
     Ranga Saran Mohan, Arvind Kumar Sharma.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 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 Jammu and Kashmir,
     resulting in an increase in the number of seats in the Legislative
     Assembly, albeit the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were
     excluded in an arbitrary fashion. The Petitioner(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
1584                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


         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.”
    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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                               1585

               K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


             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 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


1   Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 11 SCC 432.
1586                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


           assigned the task of delimitation to the Commission under
           the Delimitation Act; (ii) 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
     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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1587

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


           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 process,
           and limiting the exercise to the Union Territory of Jammu 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 published. Consequently,
           no delimitation exercise can be undertaken 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
1588                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


           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.
     (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.

     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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1589

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


           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 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 after the year 2026. The
    Respondents have accordingly argued that the relief sought by the
1590                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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 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.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           1591

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


           (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]
1592                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1593

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


     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 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 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
1594                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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 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]

27. Given the express adjudication rendered by this Court in Haji
    Abdul Gani Khan (supra), there remains no ambiguity as to the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           1595

             K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


     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.

     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.
1596                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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
    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 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.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1597

            K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.


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 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 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
1598                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     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.
41. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
    Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
42. Ordered accordingly.

     Result of the case: Writ Petitions dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan