Justice Surya Kant, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Can’t Be Invoked To Claim Right Contrary To Constitutional Arrangement: Supreme Court
|The Writ Petitions before the Supreme Court challenged the Notifications whereby a delimitation exercise was conducted for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, thereby increasing the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly.
While dismissing the Petitions seeking early delimitation for the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court has held that in matters governed by express constitutional provisions and legislative policy, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to claim an enforceable right contrary to the constitutional arrangement.
The two Writ Petitions before the Apex Court assailed the legality of Notifications issued by the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice whereby a delimitation exercise was conducted for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, increasing the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly. However, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were excluded. The Supreme Court in K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) dismissed such petitions, saying that the demand for immediate delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana ran contrary to both the letter and spirit of the constitutional design.
The Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “We have also found no merit in the Petitioners’ reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In matters governed by express constitutional provisions and legislative policy, this doctrine cannot be invoked to claim an enforceable right contrary to the constitutional arrangement.”
Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala represented the Appellant, while Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the year 2020, a Notification was issued under Section 3 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (Delimitation Act), constituting a Delimitation Commission for a period of one year, for the delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland. The States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana did not find any mention in the 2020 Notification. The 2020 Notification was, however, amended in 2021, thereby extending the term of the Delimitation Commission by one more year. This notification also clarified that the scope of the delimitation exercise would be restricted to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir only, thereby excluding the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland.
According to the Petitioners, the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the scope of delimitation under the Impugned Notifications was discriminatory. The Petitioners consequently sought a direction to the Respondents to increase the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in terms of the applicable statutory provisions.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioners that not only do the electorates of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have a legitimate expectation of delimitation, but Respondents also have a constitutional responsibility to give effect to Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act, which they have failed to fulfil.
One of the contentions raised by the Union Of India was that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, while recognized in administrative law, is necessarily subject to constitutional limitations. It was contended that any expectation for delimitation and an increase in legislative seats must yield to the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) of the Constitution.
Reasoning
The Bench held that the constitutional mandate under Article 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 Bench also found 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.
Addressing the contentions pertaining to the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Bench held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation arises when a public authority, either through a consistent past practice, an express promise, or a statutory policy, creates an expectation in the mind of an individual or class of persons that a certain course of action will be followed. “However, it is equally well-settled that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override an express provision of law or the Constitution. It must be borne in mind that the expectation must be legitimate, in the sense that it is not only reasonable but also legally sustainable within the structure of the governing statute or constitutional scheme”, it said.
The Bench was of the view that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not a rigid rule and must be conceded where a superseding public interest or a statutory or constitutional bar exists. “Thus, while legitimate expectation may guide how discretionary powers are exercised, it cannot be invoked to compel an authority to act contrary to a binding legal or constitutional command”, it said.
Finding substance in the objection raised by the Union of India, the Bench said, “ It is trite law that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, while forming an integral part of the jurisprudence on fairness in administrative action, does not clothe a party with an enforceable right in itself. It operates within the bounds of legality and must necessarily conform to constitutional and statutory mandates.” It was further explained that any expectation arising from the text of Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be read in conjunction with the clear caveat engrafted in its opening phrase—“subject to the provisions contained in Article 170 of the Constitution.”
Noting that the legal threshold for invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation has not been met, the Bench said, “Petitioner(s) cannot, in law, claim a right to delimitation in defiance of a constitutional mandate, nor can they invoke administrative fairness to defeat a clear constitutional prescription. In light of the above, we are unable to hold that the electorates of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana possess an enforceable legitimate expectation that can give rise to a justiciable cause of action under Article 32 of the Constitution.”
The Bench did not find any merit in the Petitioners’ reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and thus dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title: K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 894)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Advocates M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Aditya Santosh, Haritha H, Dimple Nagpal, AOR Lawfic, AOR Rao Ranjit
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, Senior Advocates Subramaniam, Maninder Singh, Advocates Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Indira Bhakar, Vinayak Sharma, Vatsal Joshi, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Chitransh Sharma, Satvika Thakur, Yogya Rajpurohit, Aayush Saklani, Nikita Capoor, AOR Prateek Kumar, Advocates Ashita Chawla, Rangasaran Mohan, Amarpal Singh Dua, Milind Rai