Problem with population-based delimitation

• Delimitation, enshrined in Articles 82 and 170 of the Indian Constitution, has sparked both serious and ludicrous reactions.

• Serious concerns stem from the implications of the Constitution if implemented as provided.

• Ludicrous calls for rapid population growth to deal with fear of being outnumbered.

• The Constitution provides for a readjustment of seat allocation and division of states into territorial constituencies post-census.

• The 42nd and subsequent amendments defer this adjustment until 2026, which will be the basis for future delimitation.

• There is a heated debate on population proportionality and federalism, with some suggesting a mathematical approach to delimitation and seat allocation would benefit states with faster population growth.

• Historical data shows that in the first general election in 1951-52, there were 489 Lok Sabha seats, 494 in 1957, and 520 in 1967.

• New states like Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Mysore, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh made gains.

• In the 1971 Lok Sabha election, two seats were reduced in Himachal Pradesh, bringing the total to 518.

• In the 1977 election, 24 seats were added, taking the number to 542.

Debate on Delimitation in India

Principles of Population Allocation

• The population as the basis for seat allocation is not a universally applicable principle.

• The number of seats increased from 7.32 lakh per seat in 1951 to about 27 lakh per Lok Sabha seat in 2024.

• The average population represented by a Vidhan Sabha member has tripled from 3,283 in 1951-52 to 4,123 in 2024.

Challenges with Population-Based Representation

• The Census-based population criterion was the only basis without qualifications attached, ensuring universal franchise and one vote, one value.

• The criterion does not permit adjustments based on current circumstances to avoid fissures in the polity, creating distortions in the representative federal character of the Parliament, and the feeling of regional injustice.

Questioning ‘Representation’ of Constituencies

• The representative weight of the elected person does not change because of the number of people in the constituency.

• There are no surveys to show that a smaller constituency is better represented than a larger one.

• Strengthening the third tier of elected bodies may be more meaningful for democracy and devolution of authority to local bodies.

Primary Criterion Needing Moderation

• The importance of population as the primary criterion needs moderation as the population control policy was promoted by the central government.

• There may be a need to use a deflator that can moderate the benefit that States might derive from higher population.

• A Parliament that can debate constitutional amendments aimed at achieving managerial efficiency in conducting elections can also debate ways in which the structural political imbalance inherent in the population-based delimitation of constituencies can be managed.