As Lok Sabha 2029 comes closer, it has become increasingly clear that the Modi government is trying every desperate survival tactic it can. Now, under the guise of implementing women’s reservations, it is attempting a wholesale restructuring of the democratic system in a way that permanently tilts toward the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The Opposition, of course, supports women’s reservations, having previously piloted a similar bill in the Lok Sabha. But its concerns over the delimitation bill have sharpened over the lack of prior consultation, the discrepancy between the government’s assurances and the actual text of the bills, and the recent redrawing of constituency boundaries (delimitation) in Assam and Jammu & Kashmir for blatant partisan advantage.
With the Election Commission of India (ECI) under its thumb—cancelling voters by the million in state after state—the Opposition has no illusions about the Modi-Shah government’s commitment to democratic fair play.
The federal fault-line
Thankfully, these bills require two-thirds of members present and voting, and will not be easy to push through a united Opposition.
So why do it? Possibly because the government wants to manage the headlines and deflect from its foreign policy failures, or make a last-ditch bid for women’s votes in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. Maybe the Modi government wants to create the impression that the Opposition is trying to deny Uttar Pradesh its rightful share of seats ahead of the 2027 election. Such is the lack of faith in the Modi government’s sincerity that these possibilities actually ring true.
This may be why the government appears to be backing away now, promising a “schedule” to maintain the existing balance of seats among states. One reason for the Opposition’s outrage was that the bills were contrary to private assurances. The Centre had said that any increase in the number of seats would maintain the existing balance. Instead, the Delimitation Bill explicitly states that the allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies will be done based on “the latest census figures”, which essentially means the 2011 census.
Also read: How numbers are stacked against Modi govt’s delimitation push in Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha
Political analyst Yogendra Yadav has calculated that a readjustment based on the 2011 census would raise the parliamentary tally of the five southern states by 44 seats (34 per cent) and that of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh by 131 seats (75 per cent). No wonder the southern states are in a mood to fight, fearing reduced representation.
The government’s promise to enshrine balance only kicks the problem down the road. You might think it obvious that larger states should get more seats under the principle of “one person, one vote” — but it risks sharpening federal fault-lines. This dangerous tension is exactly why delimitation — the process of redefining constituencies — was frozen for 25 years in 1976, and then again in 2000, explicitly to encourage states to reduce their population growth without fearing a loss of representation.
While a fresh delimitation is necessary in 2026, returning to a purely population-weighted delimitation would betray states that succeeded in population control.
States that contribute the most in taxes face the prospect of losing parliamentary representation and a reduced share in power. Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Information Technology Palanivel Thiaga Rajan stated plainly in 2024 that “Tamil Nadu receives only 29 paise for every rupee it contributes to the Union, and Uttar Pradesh gets Rs 2.73 for every rupee it contributes”, adding “we do not complain or begrudge it.” Many states in the south and the west feel that GST and other tax policies have deprived them of fiscal autonomy, as the 16th Finance Commission itself acknowledges.
This is not a feeling to be taken lightly, either. If those who contribute the most economically to the country are denied their political rights, it would produce a dangerous schism between prosperous revenue-generating states in the south and west and their poorer cousins in the north and east. Consider the democratic secessionist movements in Belgium, Spain and Italy, premised on wealthier, successful regions not wanting to indefinitely subsidise what they see as poor, ill-governed regions. On the other hand, political equality rests on one person, one vote, and the more populous states are justified in asking for greater relative representation.
The obvious compromise would lie in some variation of degressive proportionality as practised in the European Parliament, or variations found in Canada and other federal systems. The idea is to have ceilings and floors on the number of seats per state to prevent huge imbalances while respecting the basic principle of population.
Other flaws in the bills have also been flagged: that the government could cherry-pick censuses in future delimitations, that states’ rights are being weakened through the back door by holding Rajya Sabha seats constant, therefore making it weaker than the Lok Sabha, and that there will be no reservations for OBCs in the women’s quota.
The point is simple. In a matter with such high stakes for India’s democracy, negotiation cannot be bypassed. Recall how former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee mustered a consensus on delimitation in 2002. Modi’s BJP has to shed its arrogance, wake up to the fact that it no longer has a majority in the Lok Sabha, and engage the Opposition with transparency. The delimitation process, in particular, has to be protected from malign political influence. This will be good for the ruling party, the Opposition, and the country.
Amitabh Dubey is a Congress member. He tweets @dubeyamitabh. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)