Latest news with #NKotiswarSingh
Economic Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
SC dismisses plea for delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh,Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea for conducting delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for increasing the assembly seats in both the states.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the contention of alleged discrimination against the two states, saying provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different when compared to UTs. It held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was not arbitrary or discriminatory and hence constitutional. The top court dismissed the plea filed by K Purushottam Reddy who sought directions to the Centre to operationalise Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act which deals with delimitation of the assembly constituencies in both the states. Reddy has contended that delimiting the assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, created an unreasonable classification and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The top court said section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 was subject to Article 170 of the Constitution and as per which delimitation exercise can be held only after the first census conducted after top court said allowing the plea for fresh delimitation exercise will open the floodgates of litigation from other states seeking conduct of such exercise.
Scroll.in
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC rejects plea seeking delimitation of Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking directions to the Union government to conduct the delimitation process in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, reported Live Law. Delimitation is the process of redrawing the territorial boundaries of electoral constituencies. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the petitioner's argument that holding the exercise only in Jammu and Kashmir last year and not in the southern states was ' arbitrary or violative of the Constitution', according to Bar and Bench. The Union government had started the delimitation process of Assembly constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir in February 2020. In May 2022, the number of elected Assembly seats in the Union Territory was increased from 83 to 90 in the final delimitation order. Of the seven new seats, one was given to Kashmir, taking its total to 46, and six were given to Jammu, which now has 43 seats. K Purushottam Reddy, a professor, had approached the Supreme Court stating that excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the exercise 'created an unreasonable classification and was therefore unconstitutional', reported Live Law. Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated in 2014 to create Telangana. The Assembly of the undivided state had 294 seats. After the bifurcation, the Assembly in Andhra Pradesh was allocated 175 seats and Telangana 119. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stated that allowing the delimitation process in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana 'will open floodgates for all states to approach seeking parity'. The bench also said that the provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different from Union Territories.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Can't open floodgates': SC junks plea for delimitation in AP, Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking a fresh delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, ruling that there exists a constitutional bar against taking up such a demand before the first census conducted after 2026, while also cautioning that entertaining such public interest petitions could 'open the floodgates' for similar pleas from other states. Supreme Court of India. (PTI) A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, firmly rejecting allegations of discrimination vis-à-vis the separate delimitation conducted for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which was reconstituted in 2019 following the abrogation of Article 370. 'On a plain and harmonious reading... Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act (on increase in assembly seats) is subject to Article 170 of the Constitution,' said Justice Surya Kant while reading the operative portion of the verdict. 'We have held that this (granting the plea) will open floodgates for all states to approach seeking parity. We hold that the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) serves as a bar. Demand for the delimitation is contrary to the same and thus fails,' he added. Article 170(3), inserted by the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, freezes the allocation of seats in state assemblies until data from the census conducted after 2026 is available. Dismissing the writ petition filed under Article 32, the court held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the 2020 delimitation notification issued for Jammu & Kashmir was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. It clarified that delimitation provisions applicable to J&K, a Union Territory, were distinct from those governing states under Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution, dealing with the structure, composition, functioning, and powers of state legislatures. 'J&K having been reconstituted is not governed by Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution,' Justice Kant observed. He further noted that while 'legitimate expectation' is a well-settled principle of law, it 'does not lead to any legal right' and cannot override the express provisions of the Constitution. 'The expectation under the AP Reorganisation Act cannot be seen in isolation, as it is subject to Article 170,' he said. The writ petition, filed by K Purushottam Reddy in 2022, had sought directions to the Union of India to initiate the process of increasing the number of assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The petitioner argued that since the government had carried out a similar exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, post its reorganisation into a Union Territory, the exclusion of AP and Telangana amounted to 'unreasonable classification' and was therefore unconstitutional. It was contended that delimiting constituencies exclusively for J&K, while declining to operationalise Section 26 for AP and Telangana, violated the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, holding that the two exercises were constitutionally distinct and based on separate legal frameworks. It underscored that while Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act contemplated an increase in the number of assembly seats in both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Article 170(3) of the Constitution clearly bars any delimitation exercise until after the first census post-2026. 'Thus, any expectation for an earlier delimitation, even if indicated in the Reorganisation Act, cannot override the Constitution itself,' the court held. The bench justified the separate delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that it had undergone a fundamental constitutional reorganisation in 2019. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the former state was restructured into a Union Territory under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which empowered the Centre to initiate a fresh delimitation exercise through a Delimitation Commission. The petition before the court had attempted to argue that the same yardstick should apply to AP and Telangana. However, the bench held that Union territories are not subject to Article 170, which deals with the composition of state legislative assemblies. Therefore, the delimitation exercise in J&K could not be compared with that in states. This line of reasoning was consistent with the Supreme Court's February 2023 judgment, which upheld the validity of the delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, rejecting the challenge filed by two residents of Srinagar. In that verdict, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka dismissed the plea questioning the legal basis of setting up the Delimitation Commission for J&K and increasing its assembly seats from 83 to 90. The court had made it clear that the Delimitation Act, 2002, and the 2019 Reorganisation Act provided sufficient legal grounds for the commission's formation, and the Election Commission's role did not preclude the constitution of a separate delimitation body for the UT. The final delimitation order for J&K was notified in May 2022. It increased the number of assembly seats from 83 to 90, allocating 43 seats to Jammu and 47 to Kashmir. This marked a shift in the region's political balance, with Jammu's share rising to 47.8%, up from 44.6%, and Kashmir's falling to 52.2%, down from 55.4%. The exercise was carried out based on the 2011 Census, and despite opposition from regional parties, the Centre maintained that delimitation was a necessary step before holding fresh elections. The Union government had also argued in court that the Delimitation Commission's orders, once published in the Gazette, are final and not open to judicial review.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC dismisses plea for delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh,Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea for conducting delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for increasing the assembly seats in both the states. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the contention of alleged discrimination against the two states, saying provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different when compared to UTs. It held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was not arbitrary or discriminatory and hence constitutional. The top court dismissed the plea filed by K Purushottam Reddy who sought directions to the Centre to operationalise Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act which deals with delimitation of the assembly constituencies in both the states. Reddy has contended that delimiting the assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, created an unreasonable classification and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Live Events The top court said section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 was subject to Article 170 of the Constitution and as per which delimitation exercise can be held only after the first census conducted after 2026. The top court said allowing the plea for fresh delimitation exercise will open the floodgates of litigation from other states seeking conduct of such exercise.
Mint
5 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
7/11 Mumbai blasts: SC stays HC acquittal verdict, but 12 freed men won't return to jail—here's why
7/11 Mumbai blasts: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the July 21 Bombay High Court's judgment that acquitted the 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. July 21. The top court, however, did not stay the release of all the 12 acquitted persons in the case. The Supreme Court noted the Maharashtra government's concern that the July 21 Bombay High Court ruling could adversely impact several pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The Supreme Court bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notices to all 12 men and sought their replies on the state's appeal. 'We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, there will be a stay of the impugned judgment,' the court said in its brief order. In its July 21 verdict, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006. All the 12 accused have already walked free following their acquittal earlier this week. The HC quashed the judgment of a special MCOCA court, which handed over the death sentence to five and life term to seven people accused of conspiring and executing the Mumbai train bomb blasts on July 11, 2006. Convicts Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan were handed over the death penalty for planting the bombs. Among other convicts, Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh, and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh were granted life terms. Maharashtra government challenged the Bombay HC judgement in the Supreme Court with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis calling the HC judgement 'very unfortunate.' In the Supreme Court, however, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that he was not seeking an order to direct the accused persons, who have been released from prison following the judgment, to surrender. However, he requested a stay of the judgment, saying that some of the observations made by the High Court in the judgment can impact other pending trials under the MCOCA, legal news website LiveLaw reported. "Your lordships may consider saying, the judgment is stayed, however, they will not be required to come back to the prison," SG said. The SC accepted the contention and said the Bombay HC ruling shall not carry precedential value until further orders. In its order, the SC bench said it was not necessary to bring the 12 acquitted persons back to jail. "We have been informed that all the respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to the prison," the SC bench court said. We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Seven bombs had ripped through the local lines in Mumbai on November 7, 2006. A total of 189 citizens lost their lives and nearly 820 innocents sustained severe injuries in these blasts, which are also known as the infamous "7/11 Mumbai Blasts." (With inputs from LiveLaw)
