SC rejects plea on delimitation exercise in AP and Telangana
Supreme Court
on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the notification issued for delimitation of constituencies in
Jammu and Kashmir
without including
Andhra Pradesh
and
Telangana
. The apex court observed that the rule of parity does not apply equally to states and union territories, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked as an enforceable right when there is an express constitutional limitation.
The SC further noted that the delimitation of constituencies in AP and Telangana can only be taken up based on the data from the first census conducted after 2026.
Prof K Purushottam Reddy moved the Supreme Court, contending the non-inclusion of AP and Telangana in the notification issued for the delimitation of assembly and parliament constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir. He contended that, according to section 26 of AP Reorganisation Act, assembly constituencies in the two Telugu states should be increased from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153, respectively.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Rao Ranjit told the apex court that the exclusion of AP and Telangana from the scope of the delimitation exercise, as contemplated in the notification, suffers from the vice of intelligible differentia. The delimitation commission appointed pursuant to the issuance of the notification was the first after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, and the electorate in both AP and Telangana have a legitimate expectation about a similar exercise, which is the constitutional responsibility of the Union govt as per AP Reorganisation Act, he said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
No annual fees for life
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
The power under the Delimitation Act must be exercised uniformly by the Union govt, and there could be no plausible justification for omitting the two Telugu states from the delimitation exercise, he argued.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general KM Natraj, arguing on behalf of the Union govt, submitted that the petition is devoid of merits as there was an express bar on the delimitation of constituencies in the states governed by Article 170.
They argued that the Jammu and Kashmir comes under Article 239A of the Constitution, not Article 170. As states and union territories are governed by different constitutional schemes of arrangements, there can be no claim of parity, they argued.
Considering the arguments, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh upheld the arguments of the Union govt. Noting that states and union territories are governed by different constitutional principles and there is an express bar on the delimitation of constituencies in states, the bench observed that if the petition is entertained, it will open flood gates with similar demands from other states.
The bench also held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and parity cannot be invoked in view of express constitutional provisions and dismissed the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Gauhati HC directs those facing eviction from Golaghat forests to submit land rights proof
Guwahati, The Gauhati High Court has directed those facing eviction from Doyang and South Nambar forests in Assam's Golaghat district to submit within 10 days proof of land rights or vacate the land. Gauhati HC directs those facing eviction from Golaghat forests to submit land rights proof Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, hearing the petition of 74 people claiming they have been in possession of the land since the time of their forefathers, also directed the state advocate general to submit an affidavit by a forest officer stating that the appellants have been residing in the reserved forest area without any entitlement and are liable to be evicted forthwith. The petitioners challenged the issuance of notices by the district authority asking them to vacate their land within seven days, alleging that such action of the respondents is in contravention of certain provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Assam Land Policy, 2019 as also the guidelines of the Supreme Court's order of December 13, 2024. A group of 59 people and another group of about 15 people had filed two separate petitions and both the appeals were taken up together for hearing since the issues involved in these appeals are identical and related to the eviction of encroachers from reserved forest areas. The claim of the petitioners was that they have been in possession of the land in question since the time of their forefathers and such notices have been served upon them without any specific demarcation as to whether the land in question, said to be in illegal occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners, is a revenue or forest land. The contention of the appellants in these appeals is that no procedure has been followed for their eviction from their houses, which had been allocated to them under some scheme of the government in the past. The court observed that no documentary evidence had been submitted to support these claims. The state advocate general, however, contested the petitioners' submission and stated that the appellants are encroachers in the reserve forests, namely, Doyang and South Nambar reserve forests. He submitted that after the notification converting the forests to reserved forests and its proclamation by the officer concerned, any non-forest activity in reserved forests would be a criminal offence for which a penalty has been provided under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. He further submitted that approximately 29 lakh bighas of land in the reserved forests in the entire state have been occupied by encroachers and with the drive undertaken by the government for removing such encroachers, more than one lakh bighas of land has been cleared of encroachment. The advocate general contended that none of the appellants are flood-affected or landless, or forest dwellers, but are squatters and encroachers who, by their continuous illegal activities, have been damaging the natural habitat of wildlife. The Doyang and Nambar reserve forests had been notified about 100 years ago and never in the past, the appellants had made any claim for settlement, or for their right for 'jhum' or shifting cultivation, or else it would have been decided by the forest authorities, he said. He also submitted that the forest area in question has been demarcated and only such persons, who are found to be residing in such demarcated areas, have been issued notices. The chief justice observed that, barring a statement by the petitioners that they have been residing in the houses constructed over the years, which do not fall in the reserved forest area, no documentary proof for such a statement has been given. "However, in order to satisfy ourselves that the appellants are not forcefully and illegally evicted from their place of residence, we permit them to bring on record any document to establish the claim of their having been allocated land in the reserved forest area for the construction of houses," the chief justice observed. The court extended the time given to them to clear the forest area or submit documentary evidence of their land rights by another 10 days, to be counted from August 5, the day the order was passed, and till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants. The court fixed the next date of hearing on August 14. The state government has carried out seven eviction drives since June this year, affecting more than 50,000 people and Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had earlier said that all unauthorised occupation of forest land, VGR , PGR , Satras, Namghars, and other public areas would be cleared in a phased manner. Most of the people displaced due to the eviction drive are Bengali-speaking Muslim communities who claim that their ancestors had moved and settled in the areas where drives were carried out after their land in the 'Char' or riverine areas got washed away due to erosion by the Brahmaputra. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CM Stalin writes to Union government on securing release of T.N. fishermen arrested by Sri Lankan Navy
Following the arrest of 14 more fishermen from Tamil Nadu by the Sri Lankan Navy, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, on Thursday (August 7, 2025), urged Union Minister for External Affairs S. Jaishankar to secure their release. 'It is deeply concerning that, despite my repeated appeals to the Union government to intervene diplomatically and bring an end to the continued arrests of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy, such incidents persist,' Mr. Stalin said in his letter. The Chief Minister pointed out the latest arrest of 14 fishermen was the 17th such incident in 2025. 'At present, 237 fishing boats and 80 fishermen remain in the custody of Sri Lankan authorities, deprived of their only means of livelihood and their right to fish in traditional waters.'
India.com
25 minutes ago
- India.com
INDIA Bloc Creates Havoc In Parliament Against Voter List Revision In Bihar
The INDIA bloc parties continued their protest in Parliament on Thursday against the Election Commission's (EC) voter list revision drive in Bihar. Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge, along with other Opposition MPs, joined the protest against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and the "arrest of labourers in BJP-ruled states" outside Parliament. Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs also held a protest, holding placards with messages such as "Stop insulting Bengal." The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has sparked a political row, with the opposition INDIA bloc alleging that the revision process could lead to the deletion of a large number of voters. They have been protesting in the Parliament, demanding a discussion over the Bihar SIR, since the start of this year's Monsoon Session. Meanwhile, according to a list of business issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya is scheduled to move amendments to the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022, for consideration and passage in the House. The Union Sports Minister will also move the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, in the lower house of the Parliament. The National Sports Governance Bill aims to "provide for the development and promotion of sports, welfare measures for sportspersons, ethical practices based on basic universal principles of good governance, ethics and fair play of the Olympic and sports movement, the Olympic Charter, the Paralympic Charter, international best practices and established legal standards and to provide for the resolution of sports grievances and sports disputes in a unified, equitable and effective manner and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, be taken into consideration." Union Ports, Shipping, and Waterways Minister Sarbananda Sonowal will move the Indian Ports Bill of 2025, which aims to consolidate the law relating to ports, promote integrated port development, facilitate ease of doing business and ensure the optimum utilisation of India's coastline. The bill aims to "establish and empower State Maritime Boards for effective management of ports other than major ports; establish the Maritime State Development Council for fostering structured growth and development of the port sector; provide for the management of pollution, disaster, emergencies, security, safety, navigation, and data at ports." "Ensure compliance with India's obligations under international instruments to which it is a party; take measures for the conservation of ports; provide for adjudicatory mechanisms for the redressal of port-related disputes; and address matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, be taken into consideration," the list of business read.
