Can states change ward boundaries during a census freeze? SC to hear the plea

National Census data collection work has been started in Thoothukudi Corporation limits. File | Photo credit: RAJESH N

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) agreed to hear a petition challenging whether state governments can redefine constituencies and change boundaries during the ongoing census.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant indicated listing the case on October 9 for hearing.

The petition filed by Paka Suresh, a former mayor of the Kadapa Municipal Corporation in Andhra Pradesh, said the issue of law is of general public importance with regard to the conduct of the 2027 census, with implications for the entire country.

Rule 8(iv) of the Census Rules, 1990 requires the State Governments to “freeze the administrative boundaries of districts, tehsils, towns, etc. from a date notified by the Census Commissioner.

During this period, census exercises are carried out, including unit coding and creation, house familiarization and block enumerations. Freezing ensures that each unit is enumerated according to a fixed territorial framework, so that no area or person is omitted or counted twice, and data remains comparable between units and across censuses. If the boundary changes in the middle, the already created and coded blocks would no longer correspond to the units on the ground.

The petitioner, represented by advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, said the Chief Secretary and Census Commissioner of India had issued a moratorium period under the rule on August 13, 2025. This froze the boundaries of the administrative units from January 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027.

However, the question whether “administrative blocks” also meant “departments” was the subject of a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

In a judgment on October 1, the High Court ruled in favor of the Andhra Pradesh government that the delimitation ban issued under the Census Act was only for an “administrative block” such as a “municipality” and did not apply to a “ward”.

Mr. Nazki, in an oral argument, said that the Supreme Court’s conclusion is contrary to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that the prohibition of delimitation under Rule 8(iv) of the 1990 Rules applies to wards in an urban area.

“There is a direct conflict between the two High Courts on the provision of a Central Act which operates uniformly across India and an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court is required,” Mr. Nazki said.

He said that a “ward” is the basic territorial unit on which the census is taken in urban areas.

“If ward boundary changes are allowed at this advanced stage, the entire exercise by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India would become meaningless. Each reconstructed ward would have to be assigned a new code and list of houses and the enumeration blocks drawn in the old wards would no longer correspond to the new ones,” the petition said.

Published – 5 Oct 2026 22:29 IST