Introduction

Delimitation, the process of redrawing constituency boundaries, is a constitutional mandate aimed at ensuring equal representation in Parliament and state Assemblies. However, it has become a contentious issue due to demographic shifts between North and South India. The upcoming delimitation exercise, initially set for 2026 but delayed due to the Census, has sparked debates on federal balance, political representation, and national unity.

Southern states, which have experienced slower population growth due to better socio-economic conditions and family planning policies, fear that a population-based reallocation of parliamentary seats will weaken their political influence. Conversely, northern states, which have had higher population growth, stand to gain a significant number of seats. This disparity raises fundamental questions about democratic representation and the long-term integrity of India’s federal structure.

Need for Delimitation

Delimitation is carried out to ensure fair representation by maintaining similar population sizes across constituencies. It is governed by:

• Article 82: Mandates that after every Census, Parliament must readjust the allocation of Lok Sabha seats among states based on population changes.
• Article 81: Limits the total number of Lok Sabha members to 550 (530 from states and 20 from Union Territories) and ensures that the ratio of seats to the population is as uniform as possible across states.

The primary objective is to uphold the democratic principle of "one person, one vote, one value." However, due to regional disparities in population growth, delimitation has become a politically sensitive issue.

History of Delimitation in India

• Pre-1976: Delimitation was conducted after the Censuses of 1951, 1961, and 1971, leading to the redistribution of seats in Parliament and state Assemblies.
• 42nd Amendment (1976): During the Emergency, Parliament froze the total number of seats until after the 2001 Census. This was done to protect states with lower population growth—mainly in the South—from losing representation while implementing family planning measures.
• 2001 Delimitation: Although constituency boundaries were redrawn, the total number of seats remained unchanged due to opposition from southern states, which feared a reduction in their parliamentary strength.

Impact of Delimitation on Representation

Population-Based Reallocation of Seats

If the 2026 delimitation is based on the latest Census data, northern states with higher population growth will see a significant increase in their parliamentary representation, while southern states, which have successfully controlled their population, will lose seats.

• Projected Changes in Lok Sabha Seats Based on 2025 Population Estimates
• Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand): Increase from 85 to 250 seats
• Bihar (including Jharkhand): Increase from 25 to 82 seats
• Madhya Pradesh: Significant increase in seats
• Rajasthan: Substantial seat gain
• Tamil Nadu: Increase from 39 to 76 seats (comparatively lower)
• Kerala: Increase from 20 to 36 seats

Currently, over 32 lakh people elect one MP in some states, while in states like Kerala, the figure is only 18 lakh per MP, creating an imbalance in voting power. While redistribution is necessary to correct this anomaly, the concern is that it will disproportionately benefit northern states.

Potential Increase in Lok Sabha Strength

• If the existing formula (where each MP represents 10.11 lakh people) is used, Lok Sabha strength could rise to nearly 1,400 members based on 2025 population projections.
• However, since the newly built Parliament accommodates only 888 seats, a proportional increase is unlikely. Instead, an alternative method of seat allocation will likely be used, but southern states will still gain fewer seats relative to the North, reinforcing concerns over their diminishing political influence.

Political and Federal Concerns Over Delimitation

1. Threat to Federal Balance and Representation

• Southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka, argue that delimitation based on population growth will reduce their representation in Parliament, despite their economic contributions and governance efficiency.
• This has led to growing demands for postponing delimitation to maintain federal balance.
• Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has called delimitation a "looming threat".

2. Regional Political Impact

• Delimitation could shift political power towards North India, benefiting parties with a strong base in the region, while weakening regional parties in the South.
• This would create an imbalance in national policymaking, where northern states could dominate parliamentary decisions, potentially marginalizing issues concerning southern states.

3. The Cultural, Economic, and Political Divide

Delimitation could reinforce existing regional divisions along three major fault lines:

·         Cultural Fault Line:

• The linguistic divide between Hindi-speaking North India and non-Hindi-speaking South, East, and West has existed since independence.
• The demand for linguistic states and the non-imposition of Hindi as the sole official language helped mitigate this divide, but delimitation could reignite tensions.

·         Economic Fault Line:

• Over the last three decades, economic development has favoured South and West India, while North and East India lag.
• Southern states argue that economic contributions should be a factor in resource allocation and political representation, rather than just population.

·         Political Fault Line:

• The rise of the single party has created a North-South political divide. The party dominates North India but remains a marginal player in many South Indian states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
• Delimitation could further strengthen the single-party dominance by increasing the number of seats in its stronghold regions.

These fault lines do not fully coincide but often place the Hindi heartland and South India on opposite sides of economic, political, and cultural debates.

Concerns of Southern States and Demand for a Freeze on Delimitation

• The all-party resolution in Tamil Nadu proposes postponing delimitation by another 30 years to protect national unity and federalism.
• Some argue for a permanent freeze on seat reallocation, similar to the special provisions for smaller states like Goa and Arunachal Pradesh.
• The concept of an implicit federal contract is emerging in the debate. This suggests that India’s federal structure was built on an understanding that representation would not be solely determined by population, but also by regional equity.
• Accepting this federal contract would mean permanently closing debates on:
• Population-based seat allocation.
• Tax contribution-based resource distribution.
• A balance where northern states get more seats, while southern states retain fiscal advantages.

Conclusion

The debate on delimitation highlights the tension between democratic representation and federal stability. While the principle of "one person, one vote, one value" suggests that seat reallocation is necessary, the commitment to equitable regional representation and national unity calls for caution.

Policymakers must strike a balance between these competing interests:

• Ensuring that no region is politically marginalized due to its success in population control.
• Preventing a North-dominated Parliament that weakens the influence of southern states.
• Upholding India’s unity in diversity, where regional voices are adequately represented in national policymaking.

As the 2026 delimitation approaches, India faces a defining moment in its federal evolution, where the decisions made today will shape the political landscape for decades to come.