Delimitation: Issues and Implications

D. Raja, General Secretary, Communist Party of India

While dedicating the New Parliament Building to the nation on 28 May 2023, Prime Minister Modi, stressing why the country needed a new parliament building said “we also need to consider where will people sit when the number of seats will increase and the number of Members of Parliament will increase in the near future?” This assertion by the PM coupled with the freeze on delimitation lapsing in 2026 have brought the debate around delimitation of constituencies to the fore. While the process aims to ensure balanced representation by redrawing electoral boundaries in tune with demographic changes, it has triggered apprehensions, particularly among South Indian states. The formula being followed, the BJP-led Union government's chequered record on federalism and the disproportionate population growth between northern and southern states have intensified concerns about fairness and equity.

In this context, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has called a meeting of major political parties from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha and Punjab, states that are going to be affected if delimitation is carried out following the existing formula. The meeting will see major political forces coming together against the threat to their right to representation being axed by the BJP. Thus, an understanding of delimitation, why it was frozen and its implications on our political landscape is a must for a informed debate.

India's constitutional framework lays down clear guidelines for the delimitation process. Article 82 mandates the Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census to reflect population changes. Article 170 determines the composition of State Legislative Assemblies based on population data. Article 55 ensures proportional representation of states in the Presidential election. Article 81 specifies the maximum number of seats in the Lok Sabha (currently 552) and provides for their distribution among states based on population. Following the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the process of increasing parliamentary seats was frozen to prevent penalising states that had successfully implemented family planning measures. This freeze was extended by the Vajpayee Government through the 84th Amendment in 2001 until after the 2026 Census.

The upcoming delimitation, based on the 2026 Census, could severely reduce the representation of South Indian states while significantly enhancing that of North Indian states, given the contrasting demographic trends. Currently, major northern states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh collectively hold 174 seats out of 543 in the Lok Sabha, accounting for 32% of total seats. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Karnataka collectively hold 129 seats, representing 24% of the total. If the total number of seats remains frozen at 543 while carrying out delimitation, this disparity will widen. Projections suggest that North Indian states would gain significantly, holding 205 seats or 38% of the total, while South Indian states' representation would shrink to 103 seats or 19%. If the number of seats is expanded to 848, as proposed according to the sitting capacity in the Lok Sabha chamber of the new Parliament building, North Indian states are expected to get 324 seats or 39% of the total, while South Indian states are projected to get 164 seats, getting a slashed share of 19%.

The demographic contrast is stark. In 1971, Bihar and Tamil Nadu had comparable populations and similar representation in the Lok Sabha. Over subsequent decades, Bihar's population surged far more rapidly, resulting in a scenario where its constituencies today represent significantly more people per MP than Tamil Nadu's. Consequently, MPs from northern states now represent substantially larger constituencies than their southern counterparts. This disparity underscores the challenge that southern states face in the upcoming delimitation exercise. The reality that northern states now hold 50% of India's population, up from 43% according to 1971 census, while southern states' share has declined from 25% to 20% only deepens concerns about the fairness of the process following the existing formula.

Southern states have consistently voiced strong concerns over the post-2026 delimitation process for several reasons. Disproportionate population growth is a primary factor. Southern states have excelled in family planning measures, successfully stabilizing their populations. At the same time, northern states have experienced higher population growth. Delimitation based solely on population risks penalising the very states that followed national objectives for population control. Politically speaking, the BJP, till now, has failed to get much headway in South India, barring Karnataka. Reducing representation to these states can be a way of penalising them for rejecting the BJP electorally.

The threat to federalism is another key concern. The BJP has displayed a pattern of centralizing power, weakening India's federal structure. Examples include the imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi speaking states, financial discrimination against states like Kerala, imposing the NEP and interference in state-specific welfare policies. These actions have fueled concerns that the delimitation exercise may further undermine federalism and tilt political power disproportionately.

Economic contribution versus political representation is another dimension of the controversy. Southern states are significant contributors to India's economy. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana and Karnataka, among others, contribute disproportionately higher shares to India's GDP and taxation revenues compared to their northern counterparts. Despite this, their political representation is at risk of diminishing under the new delimitation framework. The potential for diminished representation raises concerns about economic injustice as well. States that have invested heavily in improving healthcare, education and social infrastructure risk being penalised for their effective governance.

States that prioritized investments in social development could lose out on political leverage despite their progressive achievements.  While proposing to freeze the delimitation exercise till 2026, the then Law Minister in PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s cabinet Arun Jaitely articulated this very thought in the Lok Sabha in saying “Some states which have implemented the family planning programme very effectively and there are some states where it has not been effectively implemented.” It is for the BJP to explain what has changed in these years in this regard. Moreover, reduced representation of southern states may create a parliamentary structure that disproportionately reflects the priorities and concerns of northern states. This shift may deepen the North-South political divide, aggravating existing grievances over resource allocation, language imposition and ideological differences.

The impending delimitation also risks undermining cooperative federalism, a cornerstone of India's political framework. Federalism in India is designed to ensure that states retain substantial control over their own affairs. However, the BJP government’s increasingly centralising measures, coupled with the potential outcomes of delimitation, could weaken this balance. States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which have consistently invested in social welfare and economic growth, risk being politically disempowered despite their significant contributions to the national economy. The erosion of federal values in favor of numerical dominance could destabilise India's political equilibrium.

To mitigate these concerns, several constitutional safeguards are essential. Weightage for population control must be incorporated into the delimitation process to ensure that states that effectively stabilised their populations are not unfairly penalised. Balanced representation is equally crucial; economic contribution, developmental achievements and governance success should factor into the representation formula, ensuring fairness in the allocation of parliamentary seats. Strengthening federalism is also critical. Revisiting fiscal policies to ensure equitable financial allocations to states that have controlled population growth and contribute significantly to the economy will prevent economic marginalisation.

The upcoming delimitation exercise presents a critical challenge for India's democracy and federal structure. While the process aims to balance representation based on population trends, it risks disproportionately penalising southern states that have demonstrated governance excellence and economic foresight. Without appropriate safeguards, the BJP's centralising measures may further weaken cooperative federalism, deepening regional inequalities in political influence. The 2026 delimitation must ensure equity, fairness and respect for the contributions of all regions. A framework that safeguards the interests of all states while ensuring equitable representation will uphold the principles of justice and democracy. India’s strength lies in its diversity, and any delimitation process that tilts the scales disproportionately risks alienating regions that have been instrumental in driving the country’s progress. As India approaches this transformative moment, ensuring equity, fairness, and respect for the contributions of all regions must be the guiding principle for delimitation.

Communist Party of India

Central Office 

New Delhi

Tele: 011 23235546

e-mail: cpiofindia@gmail.com