GS-2: Indian Polity

Context:

• Articles 82 and 170 of India's constitution compel delimitation—the redining of electoral constituency borders based on census data—a constitutional mandate.
• Ahead of the 2026 freeze date, the discussion on delimitation commission in India has attracted fresh interest.
• Examining historical trends, political challenges, and the need of a more sophisticated approach to representation in a federal democracy becomes imperative in the framework of these debates.

Constitutional and Electoral Implications

1.Constitutional Provisions and Amendments

• Delimitation is governed by Articles 82 and 170 of the Indian Constitution.
• These articles mandate the readjustment of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly seats after every Census to reflect demographic changes.
• However, the 42nd Amendment (1976) froze the number of seats until 2000, a decision extended to 2026 by the 84th Amendment (2001).
• The freeze was meant to encourage population control by penalising nations whose demographic data showed better than others.

2. Legislative and Judicial Complexity

• Delimitation postponement on repeated basis has produced a constitutional conundrum between political expediency and legal mandate.
• Future seat redistribution raises questions about whether it properly follows proportionality, which would cause worries of diluting political representation in states with slower population increase.

3. Unequal Representation and Voter Value

• Voter-to-MP ratios vary greatly: Malappuram (Kerala) had nearly 1.25 million, whereas Lakshadweep had 57,600 voters per MP in 2019.
• Such differences compromise the fairness of political representation over areas by violating the "one person, one vote" concept.

4. Regional Disparities and Policy Dissonance

• Southern states, which have excelled in public health and population control, now risk losing political power because of fixed seat distribution.
• On the other hand, states with higher fertility rates can acquire disproportionate political power in the following Lok Sabha setups.

5. Historical and Electoral Trends

• Between 1951 and 2004, Lok Sabha seats rose from 489 to 543, and Vidhan Sabha seats from 3,283 to 4,123.
• The average population per MP increased from 7.32 lakh in 1951 to over 27 lakh by 2024, reflecting rising voter density without a corresponding increase in seats.
• Emphasizing the federal and representative character of Indian democracy, historical boundaries have taken geographic contiguity, administrative boundaries, and regional balance into account despite a population concentration.

6. Emerging Political Disagreements

• Current discussions expose political fears and constitutional issues as well as extreme responses, including proposals to raise birth rates to guarantee future representation.

Challenges Associated with Delimitation in India

1. Constitutional Provisions and Delays

• The Constitution requires redrawing constituencies following every decennial census to guarantee proportional representation.
• To support population control initiatives, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) fixed boundaries until 2001, subsequently extended to 2026.
• Ironically, many who first opposed government deviations from constitutional duties now advocate further delay, underscoring selective constitutionalism.

2. Population-Based Representation vs Federal Equity

• Delimitation based strictly on population would benefit states with higher growth rates, predominantly northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan.
• Conversely, southern states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh—which succeeded in population control—could face reduced representation.
• This comes with a critical question: Should population proportionality supersede federal balance and punish states for good government?

3. Regional Disparities and Political Concerns

• With northern states gaining extra seats while southern and smaller northern states lose ground, demographic changes may provide disproportionate political power.
• Such redistribution might cause political unrest, particularly in areas where people believe their parliamentary weight has been lost in spite of effective government.
• As there are not enough statistics showing significant change, the worries of Southern states remain politically and symbolically important.

4. Threat to Cooperative Federalism

• Any drop in representation for some states would undermine the cooperative federalism idea.
• Regional disparities could surface, therefore polarising the Centre-state dynamic and compromising national unity.

5. Ambiguities in Seat Allocation Criteria

• Uncertainty arises from not knowing whether future seat distribution will rely on current shares or predicted population numbers.
• States may conflict over this uncertainty, particularly those that view the process as lacking justice and openness.

Lok Sabha Seat Distribution and Historical Trends

1. Initial Composition (1951–52):

• • • The first general election saw 489 seats in the Lok Sabha.
      
      
    • By 1957, this increased to 494, and further to 520 in 1967, based on the 1961 Census.
      
      
    • The changes involved 31 seats added and 5 seats reduced across various states.
      
      

2. State-wise Adjustments (1967):

• • • Reductions in Representation:
      
      
      1. Andhra Pradesh: 43 to 41 seats
         
         
      2. Madras: 41 to 39 seats
         
         
      3. Uttar Pradesh: 86 to 85 seats
         
         
    • States that Gained Seats:
      
      
      1. Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Mysore (now Karnataka), Rajasthan, West Bengal, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh
         
         

3. New States and Territories Represented (Post-1967):

• • • Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry
      
      

4. Post-1971 Developments:

• • • In the 1971 election, 2 seats were reduced in Himachal Pradesh, bringing the total to 518.
      
      
    • By the 1977 election, 24 seats were added, increasing the strength to 542.
      
      
    • States that gained representation included Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Mysore (Karnataka), Orissa, Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Haryana.
      
      
    • Newly represented regions: Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram
      
      

5. Current Status:

• • • The addition of a separate seat for Daman and Diu led to the current total of 543 seats, which has remained unchanged since the 1971 Census.
      
      

6. Representation vs. Population Growth:

• • • There is no constitutionally mandated population-per-seat ratio.
      
      
    • The average population per Lok Sabha seat increased:
      
      
      1. 7.32 lakh (1951)
         
         
      2. 8.70 lakh (1967)
         
         
      3. 10.10 lakh (1977)
         
         
      4. 27 lakh (2024)
         
         

7. Vidhan Sabha Growth and Elector Disparity:

• • • Total Vidhan Sabha seats increased from 3,283 (1951–52) to 4,123 (2024).
      
      
    • This has led to a tripling of the average population per seat in state legislatures.
      
      
    • In 2024, with 98 crore electors, each Lok Sabha MP represents an average of 18 lakh electors.
      
      
    • Extreme disparities exist: from 57,760 electors in Lakshadweep to 29.5 lakh in Malkajgiri (Telangana).

Lessons from Recent Delimitation Exercises 1. Voting Imbalance: The 2022 Jammu & Kashmir delimitation led to Jammu gaining 6 seats while the Kashmir Valley gained only 1 seat. This resulted in a voting imbalance, where one vote in Jammu effectively had 1.2 times the value of a vote in the Valley. 2. Arbitrary Geographical Merging: Constituencies were created without regard to geographic or administrative logic. For example, Poonch and Rajouri (Jammu region) were merged with Anantnag (Kashmir Valley) in the Lok Sabha seat, despite being separated by the Pir Panjal range. 3. Allegations of Communal Gerrymandering: Hindu-majority six new constituencies—Jasrota, Ramgarh, Ramnagar, Vaishno Devi, Padder-Nagseni, Doda West—were created. Previously mainly Muslim, Kishtwar was reorganised by deliberate merging to create a Hindu majority. 4. Imbalance of Population in Constituencies Vaishno Devi, Padder, Doda West drew voters of about 50,000. By contrast, Muslim-majority districts like Dooru and Surankote had electorates more than 1.75 lakh, suggesting disproportionate representation. 5. Assam Delimitation (2023): The district reorganisation (35 to 31) impacted political demography even if assembly seats stayed numerically identical. Ten constituencies with a plurality of Muslims lost; Hindu and tribal seats gained more representation.

Addressing Representation and Governance Challenges

Rethinking Representation and Governance

• The continuous discussion on representation forces a review of democratic institutions, especially in relation to India's first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system.
• Numerical constituency size has no direct bearing on the quality or efficacy of its representation.
• Empirical studies suggest no consistent correlation between smaller constituencies and better governance outcomes.
• A more pragmatic approach would empower local self-governance institutions, especially municipal bodies and Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), to enhance grassroots accountability and governance efficiency.

Need for Deeper Structural Reforms

• The workload on Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) has grown disproportionately with rising population densities in their constituencies.
• However, their primary functions—including legislation, committee work, and executive oversight—are not fundamentally dependent on constituency size.
• This demands questions on the effectiveness of adding more elected representatives as a stand-alone fix.
• Therefore, thorough institutional changes are absolutely needed to solve the fundamental structural problems in governance.

Towards a More Equitable Framework

• Current representation norms place exclusive emphasis on population size, a metric that may disincentivize effective population control policies.
• States that have succeeded in curbing population growth, especially through long-standing public health and family planning measures, risk being underrepresented in parliamentary structures.
• This presents a federal paradox, wherein success in national demographic objectives results in political disadvantage.
• Scholars have proposed the use of a “population deflator”, conceptually similar to inflation adjustments, to neutralise demographic disparities.
• An effective method could incorporate the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in seat allocation formulas as a divisor.
• Using a TFR-adjusted model instead of increasing the Lok Sabha to 1,440 seats depending on pure population measures will help preserve the size around 680 seats, balancing representation with federal equity.

Conclusion

• A political power imbalance will result from a delimitation solely based on population.
• The polarisation resulting from the communal demarcation of constituencies threatens the foundation of India's pluralistic federalism.
• Both trends pose a significant threat to the unity and integrity of India.

Practice Questions Q.Should factors like economic contribution and social development be considered in the delimitation process?

FAQs

Q1. In the Indian context, what is the definition of delimitation?

Delimitation is the process of redrawing electoral constituency boundaries in accordance with census data.

Q2. What is the reason for the apprehension regarding population-based delimitation?

It may unfairly favour states with larger population growth, while disadvantaged those that effectively managed the population.

Q3. Has population always been the sole determinant of delimitation?

No, administrative boundaries and geography have also been taken into account.