The delimitation question - An amicable solution
With lok sabha elections slated in few months electioneering has begun in true spirit from all
sides, these elections are important especially in the sense that 2026 is the year when the 25
year freeze on increasing the number of lok sabha constituencies imposed first by 42nd
amendment act 1976 and extended for another 25 years by 84th amendment act 2001 will
come to an end.
Trends like increase in the seating capacity of lok sabha hall to 888, Rajya sabha hall to 384 in
the new parliament coupled with the delay in conducting 2021 census (Article 82 permits
readjustment of seats based on first census to be conducted post 2026) suggest that the post
2026 delimitation exercise will not merely be about readjustment of territorial constituencies
while keeping the number of lok sabha constituencies in each state the same rather it would be
based on increasing the number of lok sabha constituencies on a whole.
Today an Indian MP (Lok sabha) represents nearly 25 lakh citizens, comparatively a British MP
(House of commons) represents mere 92000 and a member of US house of representatives has
7 lakh constituents, thus smaller constituencies are indeed desirable for better representation. In
this article we shall see the current approach to attain this objective, what are its challenges and
is there an amicable solution to overcome these challenges.
The existing formula for the same is given in article 81 whereby the number of constituencies
alloted to each state shall be such that the ratio between that number and the population of the
state is, so far as practicable, same for all states.
However this runs into some logical inconsistencies today, One it would punish the southern
states for better demographic performance, for instance Kerala would gain 0 seats while Bihar
nearly doubles its share
(https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/understanding-the-delimitation-exercise-explained/arti
cle67819203.ece) , it would similarly lead to lower proportionate increase for small northern
states like Punjab and Uttrakhand compared to bigger states like UP and Rajasthan, this would
present a unique challenge to Indian federalism. Even as southern states express
disappointment on reduced share of finance commission grants, loss of political representation
would add to a sense of discontent.
Second, any change in representation of states in parliament if undertaken would require under
article 368 not just approval of both houses of parliament with majority of membership of the
house and not less than two thirds of the members present and voting but also ratification from
half the states. Given the sensitivity of reducing proportional political representation a
disproportionate proposal would find it difficult to pass muster, especially in the Rajya sabha.
Perhaps a better solution to attain the objective of reducing the population of territorial
constituencies would be to first fix the maximum number of members of lok sabha the polity
desires, given the size of the new lok sabha chamber let's assume it to be 851 that is an
increase by a factor of 1.56 from the current 543, the seats for each state/UT shall be increased
by the same factor to the nearest integer irrespective of their demographic performance (except
those with very low population).
Thus, if Bihar will go from 40 to 63, Kerala too will gain from 20 to 31, such a distribution would
keep the proportion of political representation of states in lok sabha unchanged thus addressing
grievances of the south.
It would also ensure that the weighted value of votes of each state’s voters remains constant
relative to other states as it was prior to the delimitation thus ensuring status quo on the
principle of ‘one person one vote’, while reducing the size of constituencies hence solving the
dilemmas of federalism leading perhaps to a consensus among all major players.
Such a move would reduce the average population of each constituency from the current 25
lakh (assuming population to be 1.4 billion) to 16.5 lakh a 33% reduction, further by UN
estimates India’s population would peak at 1.7 billion near 2064, even then this arrangement
would mean an average 20 lakh people per constituency which would decline thereafter.
This can be done by amending article 81(2) to add that with change in the number of
constituencies the proportion of representation of states shall remain as it is today to the best
practicable extent.
Reconciling seemingly irreconcilable differences to decide by consensus was the hallmark of
our constituent assembly which gave us this federation that is a union, the impending
delimitation exercise would require those very abilities in our statesmen today.
