New Delhi, July 26 -- The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking a fresh delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, ruling that there is a constitutional bar against taking up such a demand before the first census conducted after 2026, and cautioning that entertaining such public interest petitions could "open the floodgates" for similar pleas from other states. A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, firmly rejecting allegations of discrimination vis-a-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....