K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1579 · Decided: 25-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.