As per case facts: Petitioners from the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana challenged the Union of India's notifications initiating a delimitation exercise only for the Union Territory of Jammu ... and Kashmir. They argued the exclusion of their States was discriminatory and violated the AP Reorganisation Act, which provided for an increase in their Legislative Assembly seats. They sought parity with the delimitation permitted in Jammu and Kashmir. The Union countered that the constitutional freeze under Article 170(3) bars delimitation in all States until the first census after 2026 and that the position of a Union Territory is constitutionally distinct. The question arose: whether the exclusion of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation exercise, while including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, or if the action was governed by the constitutional freeze. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the exclusion was not discriminatory as it was firmly anchored in the proviso to Article 170(3), which imposes an express constitutional bar on any readjustment of seats in States until after the 2026 census data is published. The Court affirmed that Article 170 does not apply to Union Territories like Jammu and Kashmir, which operates under a distinct constitutional regime, thereby defeating any claim of parity.