The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a plea demanding the initiation of the delimitation exercise to increase the number of Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard arguments in the petition filed by K Purushottam Reddy, who contended that the Centre’s decision to carry out the delimitation exercise exclusively in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, while excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Appearing for the petitioner, the counsel argued for equal treatment, asserting that the delimitation process should be undertaken in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana just as it was done in Jammu and Kashmir. He emphasized the constitutional mandate for parity and cited the exclusion of the two states from successive delimitation notifications despite being formed before Jammu and Kashmir’s reorganization.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the Union government, cited Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. He argued that delimitation could only be carried out after the conclusion of the census scheduled for 2026. “It is a humongous exercise and cannot be undertaken overnight,” he submitted.
Nataraj further contended that the circumstances surrounding Jammu and Kashmir, which is a Union Territory, cannot be equated with those of full-fledged states like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
Challenging this distinction, the petitioner’s counsel questioned why northeastern states like Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland had been included in the previous delimitation notification, despite being governed under Article 170 of the Constitution, similar to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. “States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which came into existence years before the J&K notification, were not included. Their exclusion lacks constitutional justification,” the counsel submitted.
The bench posed pointed questions regarding the uniform application of the Centre’s powers under the Delimitation Act. The petitioner responded by referring to Section 2(f) of the Act, suggesting that the term “states” should include Union Territories for the purposes of delimitation notifications.
