Supreme Court on Delimitation and State vs Union Territory Distinction

Background

• Petition: Sought direction to the Centre to conduct delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, citing Jammu & Kashmir delimitation (2022) as precedent.

• Judgment Delivered by: Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh.

Key Verdict Highlights

1. No Parity Between States and Union Territories

• J&K delimitation in 2022 cannot be used as a benchmark for States.

• Court emphasized: "Treating unequals equally is constitutionally incorrect."

2. Constitutional Embargo under Article 170(3)

• Article 170(3) mandates that delimitation in States is frozen until the first Census post-2026.

• This embargo does not apply to Union Territories, including Jammu & Kashmir.

• J&K’s delimitation was legally done based on 2011 Census, as per special laws governing Union Territories.

3. Distinct Constitutional Domains

• States and Union Territories operate under different constitutional provisions.

• Therefore, delimitation in J&K (a UT) cannot justify or legally demand delimitation in Andhra Pradesh or Telangana (States).

Court’s Rationale

a. Avoiding Judicial Overreach

• Allowing the prayer of the petitioner would amount to the court directing delimitation, which is political and legislative discretion.

• Delimitation is a legislative function, and a judicial order cannot override constitutional embargo.

b. Preventing Regional Discontent

• Granting delimitation to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana alone could lead to:

  • Inequality among States.

  • Demands from other regions, especially from:

    • Arunachal Pradesh

    • Assam

    • Manipur

    • Nagaland

  • These NE States were excluded from 2021 delimitation via Central notification.

c. Protecting Electoral Uniformity

• Allowing selective delimitation could:

  • Destabilise the uniform electoral framework.

  • Blur constitutional boundaries between law and politics.

Constitutional and Legal Provisions 

Significance of the Judgment

• Upholds constitutional boundaries between judiciary and legislature.

• Reaffirms the principle that States and Union Territories have different legislative frameworks.

• Reinforces uniformity and fairness in the electoral process.

• Prevents piecemeal or politically driven delimitation through litigation.