Article 170(3) Trumps Reorganisation Statutes: The Supreme Court’s Delimitation Embargo Clarified

1. Introduction

In K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India (2025 INSC 894) the Supreme Court of India was invited to examine whether the Union’s decision to conduct a fresh delimitation only for the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) – while keeping the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana outside the exercise – offended the Constitutional guarantee of equality and thwarted the mandate of Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.

The petitioners, invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, sought directions to increase the Legislative Assembly seats of Andhra Pradesh (from 175 to 225) and Telangana (from 119 to 153) exactly as was done for J&K. They alleged discrimination under Article 14 and pleaded violation of the voters’ “legitimate expectation”.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Surya Kant, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.) dismissed both writ petitions.
Held that Section 26 of the 2014 Act is expressly subordinate to Article 170 of the Constitution, and therefore the statutory promise of additional seats cannot be realised until the first census after 2026 is published.
Affirmed that Article 170(3) creates a Constitutional “freeze” on any State delimitation until post-2026 census figures are available.
Clarified that Union Territories are governed by Article 239A, not Article 170; consequently, the delimitation undertaken for J&K cannot be invoked as a ground of parity by States.
Rejected the plea of “legitimate expectation” because such expectation cannot override an explicit Constitutional bar.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Authorities Cited

Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 432 – upheld J&K delimitation; reiterated that Article 170 does not apply to UTs.
Articles 2, 3 & 4 of the Constitution – Parliament’s power to reorganise States/UTs.
Relevant Legislations: Delimitation Act 2002; Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014; J&K Reorganisation Act 2019.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Hierarchical Subordination of Statutes to the Constitution
Section 26 begins with the words “subject to the provisions contained in Article 170”. The Court treated this opening phrase as a non-obstante qualifier ensuring that any statutory increase in seats must yield to Constitutional restrictions.
Constitutional Freeze under Article 170(3)
The third proviso to Article 170(3) postpones any readjustment of seats or territorial constituencies in States until the census figures conducted after 2026 are published. The Court called this an “overarching bar” that displaces all contrary expectations.
Distinct Constitutional Regimes for States vs. Union Territories
J&K, as a UT with a legislature, falls under Article 239A. Therefore, “the main thrust of the argument… is clearly misconceived” when petitioners seek parity with a UT.
Article 14 Analysis
Differential treatment between UTs and States survives scrutiny because it rests on an “intelligible differentia” entrenched in the Constitution itself. Treating two unequals (States & UTs) alike would itself violate equality.
Legitimate Expectation Doctrine
Though citizens may anticipate seat-enhancement owing to Section 26, expectation cannot ripen into an enforceable right contrary to a Constitutional command. The doctrine is subservient to superior legal norms.

3.3 Impact and Future Significance

Solidifies Article 170(3) as an iron-clad embargo – States cannot seek interim delimitation through judicial intervention before the post-2026 census.
Clarifies institutional boundaries – Courts will not compel the executive or Election Commission to undertake delimitation in defiance of Constitutional timelines.
Pre-empts floodgate litigation – Similar claims from other States (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, etc.) are likely untenable.
Guidance to Legislatures – Any attempt by Parliament to amend Reorganisation Acts for early seat augmentation must also confront Article 170(3), unless the Constitution is itself amended.
Electoral Demography – Representation disparities created after 2001 census will persist until fresh delimitation, shaping political strategies and federal negotiations in the interim.

4. Simplifying Complex Concepts

Delimitation – The redrawing of boundaries and redistribution of seats among electoral constituencies to reflect population changes.
Article 170(3) “Freeze” – A Constitutional proviso that suspended any further seat readjustment for State Assemblies until after 2026, in order to encourage population-control policies by de-linking political representation from population growth.
Union Territory vs. State – UTs are federally administered entities that Parliament may grant legislative assemblies under Article 239A; States possess autonomous legislatures under Part VI. Therefore, different Constitutional articles apply to their composition.
Legitimate Expectation – A public-law doctrine protecting procedural fairness when the government’s past conduct or declared policy raises a reasonable anticipation in citizens; it yields to overriding statutory or Constitutional commands.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in K. Purushottam Reddy delivers a definitive pronouncement on the hierarchy of legal norms in the Indian constitutional framework: where a statute promises more, the Constitution may still mandate less—until it says otherwise. The ruling:

Reaffirms that Constitution > Statute > Executive action.
Draws a bright line between States and Union Territories for electoral re-engineering.
Preserves the sanctity of Article 170(3) and maintains nationwide uniformity in electoral readjustment schedules.

Until the post-2026 census numbers are out, the electoral map of India’s States will remain frozen. Legislators and voters in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and elsewhere must await that Constitutional milestone—unless Parliament and the States choose the arduous path of Constitutional amendment. The judgment, therefore, not only settles an immediate dispute but fortifies the architecture of India’s federal electoral design against piecemeal alteration.