Delimitation Puzzle
By Poonam I Kaushish
In this salubrious spring, political temperatures are flaring on delimitation of Lok Sabha seats scheduled 2026. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin fired the first shot by getting 35 State Parties to put forth guidelines on the contentious issue, sounding the bugle for next year’s Assembly poll. They demanded a 30-year freeze on Lok Sabha and Assembly seats till 2056 based on 1971 census. Succinctly a ‘South’ push-back against a BJP-led ‘North’-dominated Centre.
The halla bol against delimitation in five southern States Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka is understandable as together they elect 130 of 543 MPs. More, having successfully controlled population growth they now risk losing Parliamentary representation as seats are reallocated based on population. Delimitation could diminish their political influence by giving a greater share to Northern States with high population growth.
Both Stalin and Andhra Chief Minister Naidu argue why their North counterparts which lag behind should be rewarded, resulting in an ageing population and increasing migration. A realignment based solely on population would mean Northern States, with their sheer numbers, would further consolidate their influence over national politics. This, South believe could alter the country’s federal balance, making it harder for them to safeguard their interests in critical policy matters.
Hence, freeze till 2056, would allow for proper implementation of population stabilisation measures in UP, Bihar, Jharkhand etc. Towards that end both push for couples to have at least three children and promise monetary aid.
Alongside, South States begrudge Central schemes read freebies packaged as welfarism which helps win polls, viewing them as encroaching on their territory. To preserve its political voice, federal autonomy and economic contributions — is at odds with North’s cries of under-representation — its drawn a thick red line.
Think. South contributes 31% to India’s GDP and accounts for 21% population, which will reduce 26 Lok Sabha seats due to their low fertility rates (1.8 or below). Their representation will decrease from 24% to 19% of total Lok Sabha seats, leaving them with 103 seats. Even if seats are increased to 848, they stand to gain 35 seats, a mere 27% increase compared to 56% hike in seats.
The fear of being marginalized politically, thereby losing clout in financial bargains along-with shaping policies is the reason behind South upping the ante against delimitation. Asserted a Tamil MP, “If one wants actual democracy with good or bad, then one person’s vote should carry the same power no matter where he resides.
“As it stands economic disparity is already growing between South and North. Delimitation could deepen this divide, making governance more centralised in North leading to questions of fairness in fiscal federalism. Alternatively, if Lok Sabha seats are reallocated by population, Rajya Sabha should be reformed to give States equal representation regardless of population.”
Countered his UP colleague, “Representation must reflect population size as per Constitutional principle of proportional representation. Voters in South currently have greater representation per MP than in the North.” Example: UP, Bihar and MP have seen exponential population growth but still have same number of MPs as 1971, leading to severe under-representation.
Besides, voter registration doesn’t always align with population size in a constituency. Northern States, with a higher share of under-18 residents, see lower registration rates, while Southern States show greater political engagement giving rise to representation disparities. In UP an MP represents an average of 3.1 million people, compared to almost 2 million in Tamil Nadu a gap of 1.1 million. However, difference in registered voters per constituency is just 300,000.
Undeniably, this stand-off has multiple layers. Not all related to political representation. Yet it feed into concerns the Centre is trying to impose itself on States at the risk of upsetting the federal balance. Take Stalin’s polemical stand over NEET entrance exam, National Education Policy and the three-language formula, unfounded as it may be, is not merely a hangover of the State’s political legacy, which privileges the Tamil linguistic over other markers of citizenship, but has been sharpened by the Centre’s inflexibility in nuancing policies to absorb regional concerns and sensitivities. He views it as Centre trying to encroach on Tamil Nadu’s autonomy.
His move also coincides with a perceived BJP drive to spread into Southern States having reiterated its dominance in North. He seeks to stoke apprehensions, imaginery or real, about Hindutva’s homogenizing ambitions. The political context, then encourages framing of issues in warring specters and tidy binaries —— North vs South an all-conquering winner-takes-all BJP/Hindutva vs rest, representation vs federalism.
Karnataka’s Congress Government contends Centre’s actions vis-à-vis skewed tax revenue distribution, inequities in GST and disaster relief etc penalise the State. Telangana too accuses Centre of using delimitation as a backdoor strategy to cement its dominance by boosting seats in BIMARU States while sidelining South.
True, Centre has tried to dispel fears of loss of seats but to no avail. For time immemorial North-South are internally differentiated. Of “better developed” South getting short shrift in comparison to “less developed” North are reductive — they paper over many vital geographical, historical, political and policy factors which underlie the phenomenon of some States overtaking others.
BJP’s bid to expand into South also means a nuancing, leavening and softening of its political project. Similarly, pitting of representation against federalism deserves closer scrutiny. At one level it borrows the majoritarian arguments that have become the common sense on other issues—— caste census demand etc with Congress leading the charge has been raising its head.
On the flip side delimitation freeze contradicts the principle of fair representation outlined in Article 81, which mandates each Lok Sabha MP should represent between 500,000-750,000 people. But with the Constitutional freeze on seat redistribution since 1976, the average population per constituency has increased, with some MPs now representing 3 million people, leading to severe malapportionment.
Many critics argue delimitation freeze has weakened principle of one person, one vote, which assigns equal weight to each citizen’s vote. Our polity needs to keep in mind that even as the Constitution’s guarantee of political equality is shored by the principle of one-person-one-vote, the Constitutional letter and spirit also holds out protection for minorities (not necessarily defined by religion) and safeguards for federalism. Plainly, it also addresses predicaments in ways that don’t go by a mechanical application of the majority principle alone.
Clearly, the delimitation puzzle needs a solution as the can has been kicked down the road. Today Stalin wants an encore. The challenge is to forge a new path. The way forward is for the Centre to call an all Party meet to deliberate, discuss and build consensus on delimitation process which ensures no one loses and everyone wins as it goes far beyond carving out new constituencies.
The Centre should tread with caution. This is not something that should be resolved by an order imposed by it from Delhi. To endure it will require a federalism that’s all cooperative and collaborative, not competitive. Every Party, citizen has a stake in this as it’s about reinforcing the bedrock of democracy — representation in both number and spirit.
The principle of one citizen, one vote, one value is central to representative democracy, which means delimitation cannot be deferred indefinitely or be based on old data. Time to build trust between Centre, States and Opposition. The ball is in BJP-led NDA’s court. Will it play ball? — INFA