Should a fair, just, and equitable democracy stand for equal representation, or should it give more power to certain voters not commensurate with their representation? This is the dilemma that the process of delimitation and the brouhaha surrounding it are made out to be.
The Election Commission defines delimitation as “the act or process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body”. This process involves redrawing the boundaries of Lok Sabha and state Assembly constituencies, keeping in mind the changing population and its needs.
Theoretically and constitutionally, it is the need of the hour as populations and demographics evolve over time due to migration, urbanisation, development and expansion. It is practical to take another look at the existing constituencies based on the number of electorates and the requirement of representation, in the best interest of democracy. In practice, however, this means recarving the constituencies based on demographics as the Census would address the population growth.
Vote bank politics in India refers to the practice of political parties appealing to specific social, religious, or caste-based groups for electoral gains. Vote bank politics has been rather relevant in shaping the country. It has also led to the creation of political parties. Leaders often promise policies, subsidies, or reservations to secure votes, sometimes prioritising short-term gains at the cost of long-term governance. This short-sighted approach deepens societal divisions and hinders the development of policies that will ultimately benefit the nation as a whole.
Constitutional provisions
Article 82 of the Constitution of India provides for the readjustment of Lok Sabha seats: “Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine.”
Similarly, “upon the completion of each census”, Article 170(3) provides for the readjustment of the “total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the division of each State into territorial constituencies”—provided that it does not affect the Lok Sabha or Legislative Assembly until its dissolution.
For this purpose, the Parliament enacts a Delimitation Commission Act. An independent, high-powered panel known as the Delimitation Commission is constituted to carry out the exercise.
Further, Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution provide for the re-adjustment of the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies, on the basis of the 2001 Census.
Historically, Delimitation Commission Acts in 1952, 1962, 1972, and 2002 were especially enacted and seats were adjusted accordingly.
Also read: How Modi 3.0 isn’t ready for Nilekani’s ‘four unlocks’ to make India an $8 trillion economy
History of delimitation
After the first Census of Independent India in 1951, the Delimitation Commission Act of 1952 was enacted and seats for the first Lok Sabha were set at 494. The subsequent Delimitation Act of 1962, enacted after the 1961 Census, increased the seats of the Lok Sabha to 522. This was necessary after the reorganisation of states in 1956. To reflect the new boundaries and ensure adequate representation of the people, all constituencies were made single-member constituencies.
The 1973 delimitation was carried out to reflect the changes in the population enumerated in the 1971 Census. It increased Lok Sabha seats from 522 to 543.
Along came the Emergency, forced upon the Indian people by Indira Gandhi, who tampered with the sanctity of the Constitution by making sweeping changes that were not in sync with the vision of the forefathers. The Constitution was amended in 1976 to suspend delimitation until 2001. Ostensibly, this was done to safeguard the interests of the states that had successfully promoted family planning. It was thought that they should not have to face the possibility of having their seats reduced. So, there was no Delimitation Commission Act after the 1981 and 1991 Censuses.
It’s noteworthy that the 84th Amendment Act of 2001 froze the number of Lok Sabha seats per state until the first Census after 2026. It aimed to encourage states to implement effective population control measures without fearing a loss of representation.
The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 Census data, under the provisions of Delimitation Commission Act, 2002.
The upcoming delimitation
The next Delimitation Commission will be set up after 2026. This upcoming exercise has sparked significant debate and political drama over potential shifts in political representation. The primary concern is the disparity in population growth between India’s northern and southern states.
While India’s population has grown by 150 per cent since 1971, this increase has not been evenly distributed across states. The largest north Indian states have seen the largest population growth, in stark contrast to the largest southern states, which have shown lower fertility rates.
The population growth, which has not been uniform, and the five-decade-long freeze on reallocation of constituencies have created an imbalance in representation. The Members of Parliament from northern states now represent a larger constituency than those from most southern states. And this gives rise to the need for readjustment of seats and delimitation in 2026. For obvious reasons, this is not desired by regional political parties in South India.
Tamil Nadu, especially, is vociferously opposing delimitation—over 36 political parties have come together to counter the exercise. They fear that the benefits of delimitation will accrue to the Hindi-speaking belt, where the population is now higher. This will apparently give the ruling party an undue advantage as these states are the stronghold of PM Modi’s BJP.
Also read: Tamil Nadu’s Dravidian parties are holding the country to ransom. India needs a 3-language policy
South success on North coattails
South Indian states contribute approximately 30 per cent of India’s GDP. Leaders from these regions argue that reducing their parliamentary representation would not only be unfair but could also impact the allocation of federal resources, further widening regional disparities. These leaders would do well to remember that their success has come at the cost of development in states like Bihar and Odisha.
Valuable raw material and minerals mined in the North have been shipped to the southern states. The South has also reaped the benefits of the Freight Equalisation Scheme (FES) of 1948 as well as the Coal Subsidy Plan, which subsidised the transportation of inputs like coal and iron from eastern states such as Bihar and Odisha.
I wrote about this in great detail in my article dated 23 September 2024. A recent study by Cornell University found that the central government’s FES actually led to the decline of resource-rich states. Bihar, for instance, only has a 2.8 per cent stake in the GDP today, despite having the highest density of population. A state of underdevelopment has led to Bihar lagging behind, and it is a matter of common sense that underdevelopment and overpopulation are challenges for governance.
The Centre also initiated schemes to promote literacy and technical training in the southern states, leading to economic prosperity in the region. Accessibility to the coast led to the development of ports and industries were set up in the South and West.
BJP’s stand on delimitation
For a vision of Viksit Bharat, all the states must move forward collectively and not battle each other in order to self–promote. The BJP acknowledges the southern states’ apprehension that a delimitation exercise could lead to a restricted Parliament, but maintains that the process will be conducted fairly, ensuring that no state’s representation is unjustly diminished.
BJP leaders are committed to ensuring that the exercise is not intended to favour any particular region but to uphold the constitutional mandate of equal representation. Further, the BJP emphasises that the delimitation process will be transparent. All stakeholders will be consulted to address regional apprehensions, especially those such as MK Stalin, who are vociferously opposing the upcoming delimitation.
The BJP has always been committed to upholding the tenets of the Indian Constitution. It reiterates its promise to ensure a united and equitable India, a Viksit Bharat, where every state’s contribution is valued, and representation in Parliament reflects both demographic realities and the principles of federalism. As BR Ambedkar put it: “I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last, and nothing else but Indians.”
Meenakshi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
“Valuable raw material and minerals mined in the North have been shipped to the southern states. ”
That’s contrary to theeasily verifiable facts! Do you have any data to back this claim? The states that FES benefited most are Maharashtra and Gujarat, not the southern states. And WB also was affected by this policy.
The other article of yours that you have cited also sounds more like a WA article and lacks any genuine home work. You are simply saying “central schemes helped in literacy in TN and Kerala”! Do you mean to say that other states were blacked out from those “central schemes”?
Well-known people who ahve major influence, like you, should spend some time in doing research by going through the actual data before writing such articles. that is what differentiates between sensible writing and a typical WA forward!
“The Centre also initiated schemes to promote literacy and technical training in the southern states, leading to economic prosperity in the region”
Why only for south? And why did North not want it till now?