Supreme Court rejects plea to increase Assembly seats in Andhra, Telangana
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas seeking implementation of the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provided for delimitation of Assembly seats in the two successor states.
In its judgment, the Justice Kant-led Bench refused to direct delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, observing that Article 170 of the Constitution allows delimitation only after the first census conducted post-2026.
Delimitation under Article 170 has been frozen until the first census after 2026, as per the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments.
The apex court rejected the contention that the Centre's decision to carry out delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir, raising the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 based on the 2011 census, while excluding Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Highlighting the constitutional distinctions, it opined that J&K, having been reconstituted as a union territory, is regulated by parliamentary legislation and provisions of the Constitution under Chapter III of Part VI will not apply.
In a related development, the Telangana Assembly, in a resolution passed in March this year, urged the Centre to increase the number of seats from 119 to 153, pursuant to the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and as per the latest census.
The state Assembly urged the Union government to introduce necessary Constitutional amendments for this purpose in order to strengthen representative democracy.
Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy pointed out that the Centre, in reply to his question when he was a member of the previous Lok Sabha, had stated that the delimitation of Assembly constituencies would be done only after the 2026 census.
Reddy slammed the Centre for its double standards on the issue. He said the Centre increased the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 as per the 2011 census in Jammu and Kashmir, and, in Sikkim, a resolution was passed in the Cabinet in 2018, and the process of delimitation of constituencies is currently underway.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Govt. to table private school fee Bill in Monsoon Session: CM
Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Saturday said the Delhi government will table a Bill to regulate fee hikes by private schools during the upcoming Monsoon Session of the Assembly, beginning August 4. Amid ongoing protests by parents, the Delhi government had earlier approved a draft of the Bill and proposed bringing an Ordinance, since the Assembly was not in session. Now, it has decided to table the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025. 'The Delhi government will table the Bill to regulate fee hikes by private schools in the Monsoon Session of Assembly beginning from August 4,' Ms. Gupta said while addressing the media. The parents' groups, while pointing out issues in the Bill, said that they will send their detailed suggestions to the government on Sunday. Three-level checks A three-level verification will be implemented to regulate fee hikes, according to the Bill seen by The Hindu. First, schools will form an 11-member committee comprising the school management – a management representative and principal – three teachers, five parents from the parent-teacher association, selected by a draw of lots, and a nominee of the Directorate of Education (DoE). A District Fee Appellate Committee will hear appeals against the decisions taken by school-level committees. A similar procedure will be followed with a State-level revision committee, which will be the highest appellate authority. An aggrieved parents' group, which the Bill describes as 15% of the total strength of parents in an affected school, may appeal to the District Fee Appellate Committee within 30 days from the time the fees are approved, against the decisions of school-level committees. The Bill also specifies that if a school is found levying a fee that is not determined in the provisions of the Act, the DoE will direct the school to roll back the fee and refund the excess amount to the parents. The penalty for violators can range between ₹1 lakh and ₹10 lakh. Meanwhile, a fine of ₹50,000 will be levied on schools for harassing students over delayed payment of fees. The Bill also mentions the 10 factors that will determine the fee structure, including the location of the school, infrastructure made available, the education standardof schools, and a reasonable revenue surplus as may be prescribed. Divya Mattey, a parent of a student who studies in Delhi Public School, Dwarka, said, 'It will be difficult to get a minimum of 15% of the parent body to raise a question.' Mr. Mattey said that parents have noted that the penalties might not affect bigger schools, for whom '₹50,000 might be a small amount'. AAP, BJP at odds Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Delhi State president Saurabh Bharadwaj criticised the Bill, saying, 'Until now, even under the 1973 law, if a single parent felt that fees had been unfairly hiked, they could file a complaint with the DoE. Now, that has been scrapped. Under the new law, you'll need a minimum of 15% of parents to raise a complaint. In a school with 3,000 students, that means identifying 450 parents – a near-impossible task.' Delhi BJP chief Virendra Sachdeva said, 'It would have been better if Saurabh Bharadwaj had waited until the Bill was tabled in the upcoming session before commenting on it.'
NDTV
42 minutes ago
- NDTV
Bhupesh Baghel, Son Move Supreme Court Over CBI, Probe Agency Role In Liquor Case
New Delhi: Former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel have approached the Supreme Court, seeking the legal authority and jurisdiction of central investigative agencies-the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED)-in probing alleged irregularities linked to the multi-crore liquor scam in the state. The petition, according to reports, filed amid escalating political tensions, seeks clarity on whether the agencies have overstepped their mandate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and other statutes. The matter is scheduled for hearing on Monday before a bench comprising Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The move comes days after Chaitanya Baghel was arrested by the ED in connection with a Rs 2,160 crore liquor scam that allegedly operated during Bhupesh Baghel's tenure as Chief Minister. The ED claims that a parallel liquor distribution network siphoned off massive sums through unaccounted sales and illegal commissions, implicating several political and bureaucratic figures. Bhupesh Baghel has publicly denounced the arrest and subsequent raids at his Bhilai residence, calling them politically motivated and designed to suppress dissent. "The ED is being used as a tool to target opposition leaders," Baghel said, alleging that the timing of the arrest-on his son's birthday-was symbolic of the Centre's vendetta politics. The Congress party has backed Baghel's stance, staging protests across Raipur, Jagdalpur, and other districts, accusing the BJP-led Centre of weaponising investigative agencies to intimidate political opponents. Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on July 18, 2025, which was also his birthday. The arrest was part of an ongoing investigation into a Rs 2,160 crore liquor scam allegedly involving a nexus of politicians, bureaucrats, and liquor contractors operating during Bhupesh Baghel's tenure. ED officials conducted raids at the Baghel family residence in Bhilai, Durg district, early in the morning on July 18. Chaitanya was taken into custody under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED cited non-cooperation during the search as grounds for immediate arrest. Bhupesh Baghel publicly condemned the timing, calling it a "birthday gift" from the Central government and alleging political vendetta. The first ED raid at Bhupesh Baghel's Bhilai residence occurred on March 10, 2025. Baghel claimed that this earlier raid was timed to prevent him from participating in the state budget session, alleging that it was politically motivated and aimed at silencing opposition voices. Between the March raid and the July arrest, Baghel stated that no formal notice or inquiry was issued to his son, raising questions about procedural fairness. The ED alleges that Chaitanya Baghel received Rs 16.70 crore in illicit funds and played a key role in laundering over Rs 1,000 crore through real estate and other channels. The case has since become a flashpoint in the broader debate over the use of central agencies against opposition leaders.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Over 2 lakh forms requesting Mahadevi's return to Nandani Jain mutt sent to President
Kolhapur: An online petition initiated by MLC Satej Patil garnered 2,04,421 signatures nationwide, demanding the relocation of the elephant, named Mahadevi alias Madhuri, to the Jain mutt in Nandani. On Saturday morning, the signed petition forms were sanctified by Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya, the chief of the Jain mutt, and sent to President Draupadi Murmu via post from Kolhapur's Ramanmala post office by Satej Patil and former MLA Ruturaj Patil. Speaking on the occasion, Satej Patil said, "After the Supreme Court's decision, a lot of disappointment spread among the people. This discontent can be seen as within 48 hours, 2,04,421 people from across the nation signed the petition supporting the call to bring the elephant back to the Nandani Jain mutt. We took printouts of all these forms, sanctified them by the chief of the mutt, and then sent them to the President. We request President Draupadi Murmu to give attention to this and resolve thë issue." Patil also commented on Vantara CEO Vivaan Karani's visit to Kolhapur on Friday, saying, "We were not invited. Only Mahayuti party MLAs and MPs were invited for the meeting when the CEO of Vantara arrived in Kolhapur. Therefore, we do not know anything about what discussions were held, what agreement took place or whether a settlement was done. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The guardian minister has said it is a legal issue and legal procedure will have to be followed, but Mahayuti MLAs and MPs should declare in how many days the elephant will be brought back. As an opposition party member, we have done the work of showcasing public sentiments in front of the President." He added, "Elephants causing menace in Ajara, Chandgad, and Bhudargad regions should be taken to Vantara instead of this tamed temple elephant. If they give a protocol, then we assure them that the elephant will be taken care of as per their guidelines. This is an issue of religious and traditional beliefs. If over 14,000 cow shelters are run by Jain communities across the world, then how can someone say that they can't manage a single elephant?" Meanwhile, several villages in Kolhapur and Sangli districts observed a village bandh on Saturday, shutting down businesses and schools. Rallies were held in these villages demanding the return of the elephant to Nandani. The elephant's rehabilitation from the mutt to a Jamnagar facility, carried out on the night of July 29 after the Supreme Court dismissed the mutt's appeal against the Bombay high court order directing such relocation, prompted an emotionally and politically charged campaign to bring Mahadevi back. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
