AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The batch of writ petitions is filed challenging the proposed action of the respondent/state in undertaking the delimitation process of various Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State as violative of Circulars issued by the Registrar (General) and Census Commission, India and also contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities Act, Census Rules and other applicable laws. In some of the writ petitions, the preliminary notification issued calling for objections to the proposed delimitation of wards is also under challenge.
WP.No.15061 of 2026 is argued as a lead case on behalf of the petitioners by Sri.K.Srinivasa Murthy; with the consent of the counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, and Sri. Jupudi Yagnadut, learned Central Government Counsel, all the writ petitions are decided by a common order.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Circular No.1, dated 13.08.2025 is issued by the Registrar (General) and Census Commissioner, India, Census Division. It is submitted that the basic purpose of the Census is for enumeration of all the individuals in the country without any omission or duplication for preparation of a complete and updated list of all territorial entries in the Country. It is submitted that the Circular specifically mandates freezing of boundaries of administrative units for Census 2027 and that Clause 2(m) of the Circular prohibits change in the ward boundaries of a Town.
It is also submitted that when the Census process is underway, the respondent/state could not have undertaken the process of delimitation. It is also submitted that the Registrar (General) and Census Commissioner of India vide D.O. No.9/10/2025 C D (Cen), dated 27.06.2025 requested the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in their respective states/ Union Territories to ensure that no changes whatsoever are effected in the boundaries of Administrative Units during the period from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027. All jurisdictional changes made on or before 31st December, 2025 have been informed to the said Authority.
It is submitted that the State Government is very well aware that they are not entitled to change or alter the boundaries of a Ward during 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027. The same is evident from the correspondence of the Commissioner and the Director of Municipal Administration issued to all the Collectors and District Magistrates in the State. It is submitted that paragraph No.6 of the said correspondence is categorically clear on the said aspect.
It is submitted that the respondent/state has amended the existing Rules of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Fixation of Strength of Nagar Panchayats and Municipal Councils) Rules, 2004 and Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Fixation of Strength of Elected Members) Rules, 2005 based on population criteria for fixation of strength of elected members in Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats and Municipal Corporations in the State.
It is submitted that Rule 3 is amended by increasing the number of elected members as compared to GOMs.No.4, dated 03.01.2020 by taking the population as a criterion. It is submitted that GOMs.No.65, dated 24.03.2026 is contrary to the Rules. It is also submitted that the sanctity of census figures is ignored by issuing the notification proposing delimitation of the wards. It is also submitted that Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India is the Union List, and Census is listed at S.No.69 in List-1; as such, the State cannot trespass into the domain of the Union of India.
The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the correspondence of the Commissioner and Principal Census Officer, G.V.M.C., Visakhapatnam addressed to the Director of Census Operations, Directorate of Census Operations, A.P. and Telangana, dated 30.01.2026, whereby a specific mention of a ward is made. It is submitted that a ward in a municipality or Municipal Corporation is an Administrative Unit and its boundaries cannot be altered when there is a specific instruction from the Registrar (General) and Census Commissioner of India to freeze the boundaries and not to alter them between 01.01.2026 and 31.03.2027.
The learned senior counsel placed reliance on Pawan Sharma Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors1. It is submitted that Gauhati High Court had considered the Ward as an Administrative Unit at paragraph No.4 of the Judgement. State of Telangana and Others Vs. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Others2. It is submitted that the Legislative Field between Parliament and the Legislature of any State is divided by Article 246 of the Constitution of India and Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws with respect of any matters enumerated in List-1 of the 7th Schedule. It is submitted that the action of the State is contrary to the law of the land.
The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948 would appoint a Commissioner of Census who is empowered to conduct a census throughout the area and the Central Government is empowered to make Rules under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted that the Act or Rules would not empower the Census Commissioner to issue any circulars prohibiting the delimitation of Wards.
It is submitted that Rule 8 (iv) of the Census Rules, 1990 freezes the Administrative boundaries of Districts, Tahsils, Towns, etc., from the date to be intimated by the Census Commissioner, which shall not be earlier than one year from the Census reference date and till the completion of the Census. It is submitted that the word etc., in the said Rule cannot be extended to a Ward in a Municipal Corporation or a Municipality. It is submitted that the word etc., in Rule 8(iv) denotes similar areas. The nomenclature of the Administrative Units in different states may vary according to the local nomenclature of the said Units. However, the same cannot be extended to a Ward.
It is also submitted that Rule 12 of the Census Rules would empower the Census Commissioner to issue General or Specific instructions or directions to the Principal Census Officers as may be necessary for efficient conduct and timely completion of Census operation. It is submitted that the power of the State for the constitution of the Municipalities is derived from Article 243Q and the composition of Municipalities from Article 243R and the Constitution and composition of ward committees from 243S. The power of the State for governing the Municipalities is derived from Part IX-A, Articles 243P to 243ZG.
It is submitted that the State has power to delimit the wards for proper representation of the residents of the Municipality or Corporation. In several Municipalities and Corporations, some villages were either merged into or de-merged from the Municipalities or Corporations, and without undertaking the delimitation process, the area cannot be determined for conducting elections. It is submitted that the geographical area of the Municipality or the Corporation or the territorial limits of the local bodies would remain unchanged in the delimitation process.
The learned Advocate General submits that the petitioners are trying to bring in the definition of an Administrative Unit as equivalent to a Ward also only to suit their purposes. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not pointed out their specific fundamental right which is violated by the proposed action of the State in undertaking the delimitation of the Wards. It is also submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to any of the petitioners; and their right to vote or right to contest is not affected.
It is submitted that it is also not the case of the petitioners that the Census authority has challenged the action of the State. The petitioners and all concerned could as well have submitted their objections to the preliminary notification and instead rushed to this Court to file the batch of writ petitions, only to hamper the delimitation of the wards with ulterior motives. The petitioners have also not pointed out any violation of any Rule or Act for maintaining the writ petition.
The learned Advocate General submits that in all matters where preliminary notifications are under challenge, the Government intends to issue fresh notifications. The submission of the learned Advocate General is taken on record to that extent.
Sri. Jupudi Yugnadutt, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the Union of India has filed a detailed counter and also placed on record the DO.No.9/10/2025 CD(Cen), dated 27.06.2025, whereby, the Registrar (General) Census Commission had issued instructions to ensure that no changes whatsoever are effected in the boundaries of Administrative Units during the period from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027. This Court requested the Central Government Counsel to obtain specific instructions as to whether a Ward is an Administrative Unit. Instructions dated 17.08.2026 have been filed before this Court, and the Ward is considered the lowest Administrative Unit in Urban Areas for Census and Census Data.
In reply, Sri.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that each ward is different and distinct with definitive jurisdiction. On a query from the Court as to whether the Census exercise is underway and has anything to do with the voting for the elections to the local bodies, the learned senior counsel fairly submits that the Census exercise has nothing to do with the election process.
The learned senior counsel further submits that the Administrative Unit as understood by the Census Commissioner ought to have been uniformly addressed by the State and refrained from undertaking the delimitation process of the Wards.
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India. Perused the material on record.
The proposal for undertaking the delimitation of wards would not redefine the territorial limits of the Municipality or Municipal Corporation, and each Municipality and Corporation has clear geographical boundaries or a specific area of Authority. The Municipality or the Municipal Corporation would have to be considered an Administrative Unit for issuing administrative orders. Each Municipality and Corporation shall carry out specific functions, such as revenue collection, development works, and other infrastructure development activities essential to the hassle-free living of citizens.
An Administrative Unit is distinct, and a Ward cannot be considered as an Administrative Unit in a Municipality or a Corporation, as there is no separate office establishment for each of the Wards in any Municipality. The Wards do not collect the revenue by issuing the necessary receipts on behalf of the particular ward. The tax collected or any revenue or any amount paid to the Municipality or Municipal Corporation would be acknowledged in the name of the Municipality or Corporation as applicable. Thus, the Wards collectively form a Municipality or Corporation, and the Municipality/Corporation would be an Administrative Unit for all purposes.
A Grama Panchayat would have to be considered as an Administrative Unit the Administrative Office of each Grama Panchayat regulates the collection of tax, providing basic amenities to the residents of village and other related activities. Geographically a Ward in a Corporation may be equal to or greater than the geographical area of more than one Grama Panchayat. However, on account of no separate statutory power vested in each of the Wards of the Municipality/ Corporation for passing orders or governing the business of the Ward, a Ward in a Municipality/ Corporation cannot be treated as an Administrative Unit.
The Circular issued by the Central Government freezing the boundaries of Administrative Units for Census 2027 has to be considered only for Census and Census data. The same cannot be made applicable to the delimitation of wards. The Municipality/Corporation is created and delineated by specific acts. The decisions of the Municipality/Corporation regarding sanitation, water supply, tax collection, and street lighting are all executed by the Administrative Unit, i.e., the Municipality/Corporation.
When the geographical area or the territorial limits of Municipality/ Corporation would remain unchanged on account of delimitation of Wards. This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners and the fundamental right to vote in the ensuing local body election is in any way not impacted. The process of delimitation has nothing to do with the ongoing Census and the Census exercise is unconnected with the Voting in the ensuing elections. The petitioners, anyway, have the option of submitting their objections to the fresh notification, which, as submitted by the learned Advocate General, shall be issued. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitions are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.