Depriving states of their autonomy and will by deploying an undue population-based numerical advantage will create discord and lead to majoritarian rule against constitutional values.
Published Apr 06, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 06, 2025 | 9:00 AM
Critics argue that delimitation based on current population would affect the representation of Southern states. (iStock)
Synopsis: Population-based delimitation will give unfair advantage to some states, while others will be disadvantaged. While an increase in the strength of MPs is desirable, at least a near-ideal solution should be found so that no state or marginalised community is left out. Till such a solution is reached, it is better to put the delimitation exercise on hold.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin-initiated Joint Action Committee (JAC) for a fair delimitation exercise has garnered national attention with Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal, Telangana, Odisha and Karnataka — besides the host state — coming together on a common platform.
Though he skipped the conclave at Chennai on 22 March, former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh YS Jagan Mohan Reddy in his letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasised that the proposed population-based delimitation of constituencies has the potential to disrupt the social and political harmony of the country. He demanded that the states’ representation in Parliament should not be reduced.
Odisha’s former chief minister and BJD chief Naveen Patnaik also stressed that the states that prioritised the National Agenda of Population Control should not be dis-incentivised by reducing their pro rata representation in the Lok Sabha.
Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann said while the number of seats might increase in his state, delimitation would decrease its overall representation in the House of People
substantially from 13 seats out of the present 543 members to 18 out of the anticipated 850.
Netizens, too, voiced their concerns over the Union government’s plan for the delimitation exercise in 2026. Several of them felt the planned delimitation would amount to punishing states for controlling their population growth.
The concerns, both by governments and individuals, mostly came from South India. Comments like “serves only Hindi-wala” brings to light apprehensions of communities in other states too.
Additionally, highlighting the polarised social opinions and regional chauvinism in these comments were not to steer away from the primacy of the process of delimitation, but to bring to light the impending social dangers of delimitation.
There were also comments about using different parameters to carry out delimitation, thereby addressing the democratically deficient aspects of the existing delimitation procedure.
Since politically most of the states which participated in JAC are the ones where the BJP has
struggled to win alone or along with partners, it is difficult to miss the political will behind Stalin’s Chennai exercise.
The Indian Constitution mandates delimitation through articles such as 80, 81, 82 and 172 which explicitly mention that the spirit of one vote, one value must be adhered to, and changing demographics profile must be reflected while carrying out delimitation.
This was followed until 1971, but policy advocacy of family control measures led to a freeze of delimitation through the 42nd amendment.
However, the Indian demographic divide widened in 2001,which forced the then-prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to effect a further 25 years pause on the process.
This 50-year pause needs to change. However, without addressing and answering the key concerns raised by all stakeholders, it will alter the nature of Indian democracy forever.
Our constituent assembly makers were committed to the principle of one vote, one value (OVOV) to ensure the government and the administrative system, as a whole, is more responsive to the preferences of Indian citizens. But the freezing of delimitation altered the dynamics.
In 2019, a Carnegie Endowment study identified that nine states were overrepresented, while as many were underrepresented in the Lok Sabha.
Gujarat’s population is roughly similar to that of Tamil Nadu but it has only 26 Lok Sabha seats against the latter’s 39. Bihar’s population is three times that of Kerala, but in the Lok Sabha, Bihar has 40 seats whereas the southern state has 20.
This underrepresentation and overrepresentation undermines the basic tenets of democratic spirit of political equality of OVOV, as the needs of, and suitable policy measures for, each citizen in this multicultural society are severely hampered when each constituent is not duly represented in Parliament.
Members of Parliament have many constitutional and practical functions to perform. It poses a great challenge for an MP to execute all these functions when his/her constituency is underrepresented — which means overpopulated than the national average.
Other untold tragedies — such as the cap on poll campaign expenditure — adversely impacts the efficacy of candidates’ political messaging if the constituency is overpopulated. It systemically dilutes a level playing field, which is essential for a healthy democracy.
In a country like the UK with a population of approximately 70 million, there are 650 parliamentary seats, i.e., one MP per 0.1 million people. Indian MPs are already stretched in their administrative and political responsibilities with each representing at least 10-30 times more constituents than their UK counterparts.
The philosophy of representative democracy is emphatically challenged, as the gap between people and their elected representatives is greater than other elected representatives in other
nations.
When delimitation froze in 2001, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were due for more seats — 88 and 45 as compared to 79 and 41, respectively — due to their increased population.
Another 25 years without delimitation will do injustice to the most marginalised groups.
While the JAC views the delimitation exercise as a direct assault on India’s federalism, the eschewing of delimitation is often observed by others as depriving citizens of effective governance.
It isn’t the first time that the BJP-led Union government has been challenged by the state governments on principles of federal rights. Such opposition was seen in the case of farm laws, CAA-NRC, Covid-19 management, GST and disbursement of funds from the Union to the states, besides struggles between governors and state leaderships.
However, delimitation would change the nature of challenge to the central government’s decision making itself. In each of the aforementioned cases, the state’s ability to take decisions in the matters as mandated by the constitution were overridden and jeopardised.
Hence, the unease of the states about the delimitation process isn’t without sufficient background.
Former Telangana minister and BRS leader KT Rama Rao made a valid point, saying, “a true federation doesn’t allow any region to dominate another nor does it permit dilution of democratic representation based on transient factors.”
To use population alone to create/calculate the next set of constituencies will skew the will of states in Parliament, as both simple and special majority to pass laws could be possibly achieved without the presence or the say of several states. This will lead to a hierarchical advantage for some states in determining national policies, while others will be disadvantaged.
Considering the aforementioned set of concerns, the delimitation should be paused again until a near-ideal formula is devised.
The changing demography must be accounted for so that the vulnerable groups are adequately represented in decision-making bodies, besides states with increased populations. An increase in the number of MPs is desirable for a better administration.
But, depriving states of their autonomy and will by deploying an undue population-based numerical advantage will create discord and lead to majoritarian rule against constitutional values.
However, one way to accommodate these two challenges is that India can opt for delimiting constituencies on population basis and providing more MPs for populated states even while retaining proportional representation by altering the vote value in parliament to overcome lopsided decision-making.
Of course, this is no short of a compromise on democratic values in order to carry forward different communities in groups.
Let us recall Article 81, which says, “there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States”.
(Saumya Gupta, an independent researcher and political consultant, was the Political Intelligence Unit lead for TMC on behalf of I-PAC during the West Bengal elections. Thirunavukarasu S is a Junior Research Fellow at the University of Madras. Views are of the authors. Edited by Majnu Babu).
