Background
The hopes of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for an early increase in Assembly constituencies have been dashed by a recent Supreme Court judgment. Both States were banking on provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which envisaged an increase in the strength of their Legislative Assemblies—Andhra Pradesh from 175 to 225 seats and Telangana from 119 to 153 seats.
This was seen as a crucial measure to ensure better representation after the bifurcation of the erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh. However, the judgment makes it clear that these promises cannot be implemented until after the first Census conducted post-2026, due to constitutional restrictions.
Constitutional Position: Article 170
The central legal issue arises from Article 170 of the Constitution, which deals with the composition of State Legislative Assemblies.
-
Article 170(2) provides for readjustment of Assembly seats after each Census.
-
Article 170(3), however, imposes a constitutional embargo:
Delimitation in States is frozen until after the first Census conducted post-2026.
This freeze was originally introduced by the 42nd Amendment (1976) during the Emergency, to incentivise States to pursue family planning policies without losing political representation. It was later extended by the 84th Amendment (2001) and the 87th Amendment (2003), keeping the freeze in place until after the 2026 Census.
Thus, even though the 2014 Act envisaged an increase in seats, the constitutional freeze under Article 170 overrides such statutory promises.
The Reorganisation Act vs. Constitutional Freeze
-
Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 stated that the number of seats “shall” be increased.
-
However, Parliament did not insert the phrase “notwithstanding Article 170(3)” into the Act.
-
Without such an explicit override, the constitutional freeze prevails, making it impossible to implement the provision before 2026.
Former MP B. Vinod Kumar pointed out that this legislative drafting gap is the real reason the States’ hopes have been disappointed.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition filed by Professor K. Purushottam Reddy, held:
-
No parity with J&K: The delimitation carried out in Jammu & Kashmir in 2022 (based on the 2011 Census) cannot be cited as a precedent, since J&K is a Union Territory, and Article 170 does not apply to UTs. They operate under a different constitutional and statutory framework.
-
“Treating unequals equally”: Extending the J&K model to States like Telangana or Andhra Pradesh would violate the principle of constitutional equality.
-
Adherence to Article 170: Any delimitation for States can only happen after the 2026 Census is completed and published.
Practical Timeline
-
The next Census is scheduled to begin in 2026, with house-listing and enumeration to be completed by March 1, 2027.
-
Finalisation and publication of Census figures will take additional time.
-
Only then can the Delimitation Commission begin its work, pushing the exercise well into the late 2020s.
This means Telangana and Andhra Pradesh may have to wait at least five to six years before their Assemblies see an increase in seats.
Implications for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
-
Representation Concerns: Both States, particularly Telangana with its fast-growing urban population (Hyderabad), feel underrepresented in the current Assembly structure.
-
Political Setback: The ruling parties, which had raised public expectations, now face disappointment.
-
Legislative Drafting Lesson: The episode underlines how statutory provisions cannot override explicit constitutional embargoes unless Parliament clearly enacts a “notwithstanding” clause.
-
National Impact: The judgment reinforces that delimitation is a national exercise, not State-specific, ensuring uniformity across India.
The judgment may have disappointed Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, but it is legally unsurprising. The constitutional freeze under Article 170(3) is unambiguous. The Reorganisation Act’s promises were aspirational, not immediately enforceable.
In hindsight, a more careful drafting of the 2014 Act—explicitly overriding the freeze—might have enabled a faster increase in seats. For now, both States must wait until the post-2026 delimitation exercise.
