AS the year 2026 approaches, the issue of the delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies is drawing public attention and controversy. This is the year when the freeze on the number of seats will end, and the next round of delimitation must be undertaken following the first census conducted after 2026. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, enacted during the Emergency in 1976, initially froze delimitation. Later, under the Vajpayee government, this freeze was extended until 2026.
The delimitation process set out in the Constitution involves two aspects: (i) Revising the number of parliamentary seats in each state based on its population ratio to the national total after each decadal census and also adjusting the number of legislative assembly constituencies in each state accordingly; and (ii) Redrawing the territorial boundaries of parliamentary and legislative assembly constituencies to ensure they are relatively equal and comparable in terms of population.
Because of the Constitutional amendment in 1976 and subsequently the amendment made during the Vajpayee government in 2001, no delimitation commissions were appointed after the 1981, 1991 and 2001 decadal Censuses. Now the issue has come to the fore as the freeze will end in 2026 necessitating delimitation as per the Constitutional provisions. The primary objection to delimitation based on latest population figures is that it would diminish political representation for the southern states in Parliament.
This disparity arises from the varying population growth rates among states. Some states, through effective population control measures, have seen a sharp decline in growth, while others have experienced significant increases. As a result, states that successfully controlled population growth would be penalised, while those that did not would be rewarded with additional seats. Even Punjab, Odisha, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand are expected to lose some seats. This is why the southern states, which have led in population control, strongly oppose using population figures as the basis for delimitation.
Even if the total number of seats is increased from the current 543 to 848, as reported in the media, a population based delimitation would give the five southern states together around 40 seats more, while Uttar Pradesh alone would gain 63 seats and Bihar 39 seats. It is this disproportionate distribution, which is being opposed by the southern states.
In response to the objections to the delimitation process based on the latest Census figures, the Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, has stated that no southern state would lose seats, but gain additional seats on a pro-rata status. However, the statement remains ambiguous as it does not clarify whether the pro-rata calculation is based on the current number of seats or the latest population figures. If it is the latter, then the North Indian states still get a disproportionate share of the increased number of seats.
The best method in the present situation would be to adopt a pro-rata seat increase based on the current number of seats each state has. While increasing the total number of seats to ensure better representation for the people, this approach would also ensure that the current proportion of seats among the states would be maintained. Under this method, each state would receive additional seats based on its current allocation rather than population growth.
As an example, if the total number of seats is increased to 800, then Tamilnadu, which currently holds 39 parliament seats out of the total 543, would get an additional 18 seats making a total of 57, which would be the same proportion of seats to the overall total it has had. By this formula, Kerala would get an additional 9 seats from its current allocation of 20, making it 29. Uttar Pradesh, which has currently 80 seats, would get an additional 38 seats making a total of 118 and Bihar, an addition of 25 seats making a total of 79 seats.
These are all the same proportion of seats that they have currently. So while increasing the total number of seats to ensure better representation, no state will suffer a reduction in the proportion of seats that it holds. However, if a consensus cannot be arrived at on this approach, the only other alternative would be to suspend the delimitation process for another 25 years.
The Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, MK Stalin, has convened a meeting on March 22 of the chief ministers of southern states and major political parties from West Bengal, Odisha and Punjab to discuss the issue and to come to a common position. The stand taken by this joint meeting should set the pace for arriving at a solution to the delimitation problem.
(March 19, 2025)
or reload the browser
