The proposed delimitation of constituencies has thrown up a Catch-22 situation. Should each Lok Sabha and assembly segment in the country have an equal number of voters? Or, should each seat within a state have an equal number of voters? The logic of redrawing constituencies so that each vote has equal value is irresistible from the standpoint of democratic principles but is unjust from that of federalism.
The stance of the southern states is that population cannot serve as the sole criterion for the share of resources and political representation. Demographic performances must be given equal weightage. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin’s sarcastic jibe says it all: “Now I would urge newlyweds to immediately have babies and give them good Tamil names.”
He implied that, having successfully stabilised its population and achieved a total fertility rate (TFR, or the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime) of 1.8, the state would be penalised with a reduced seat-share in the Lok Sabha.
Similar protests have emerged from other states of South India, all of which have achieved TFRs of 1.7 to 1.8, well below the replacement level. By contrast, the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand, which already have a large population base, have TFRs that are above replacement level. The discrepancy in population between North and South is increasing by the day.
The fears of the southern states obviously arise from the current political scenario, in which the ruling BJP dominates the North but not the South, where it holds just 29 of 129 seats. If the North were to undermine the South in Parliament, it would be to the BJP’s advantage. But such a move, even though mandated by the Constitution, would spark massive civil unrest, and no government wants to risk that.
Home minister Amit Shah has clarified that no state will suffer a reduction in the number of MPs it sends to the Lok Sabha: “After delimitation, on pro rata basis, not a single seat will be reduced in any southern state.” The term ‘pro rata’ is significant because it implies that the proportion of state-wise representation in Parliament will be maintained, even if the overall number of parliamentary constituencies increases.
In other words, if TN currently has a 7.2 percent representation in the Lok Sabha, as compared to a 6 percent share of the total population (2011 census), that percentage will remain the same after delimitation. The same applies to Uttar Pradesh, which has a 14.7 percent share of seats but a 16.5 percent share of population (2011 census). Statistically speaking, a vote in UP has less ‘elective power’ than a vote in TN. According to Shah, that will not change.
What, then, is the purpose of delimitation? There could be two advantages. First, increasing the number of Lok Sabha seats to which elections are held would ensure that each MP has fewer constituents to deal with, and this would hypothetically increase efficiency. Second, the discrepancies in the number of electors between constituencies in the same state could be addressed.
However, this is likely to open up a can of worms as regions within states compete for a larger share of seats. Low population regions get less developmental funding because they send fewer MLAs to the assembly. In Uttarakhand, for example, the 1971 census gave the hill region the lion’s share of seats.
But the delimitation based on the 2001 census reduced the number of seats allocated to the hills and increased those of the plains. Any further reduction in the representation of the hills, which accounts for 86 percent of the geographical area, could revive the ‘hills versus plains’ debate.
The founding fathers of the Constitution instituted Articles 81, 82 and 170, which call for redefining the boundaries and the number of constituencies after each census, in the backdrop of a rapidly growing population (360 million in 1951). A national family planning programme was already in the works by then. But the idea that vast regional discrepancies in population growth might emerge was not considered.
The demographic performance was factored into the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act of 1976, which froze the number of seats in each state until the 2000 census. The rationale behind the decision was precisely to maintain the representation of states, which had instituted robust population stabilisation measures, and the proviso was later extended to the 2026 census.
As a result of the 42nd amendment, the last exercise in delimitation, held from 2002–2008, under a commission headed by the late Supreme Court Justice Kuldip Singh, maintained the number of seats in each state while redrawing the boundaries of constituencies. This was different from the previous exercises, which had led to an increase in the number of Lok Sabha seats, from 489 in 1952 to 543, and a readjustment between states.
The Centre’s current stance is that a constitutional amendment based on the 2026 census will ensure that no state or region loses out as a result of population growth. The South, with its lower population and better human development indices, already feels it has been given a raw deal because the 15th Finance Commission privileged the population parameter over demographic performance. Clearly, population criteria alone will no longer suffice.
Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.
