Delimitation and Democracy: Fair or Flawed?

• The Delimitation Commission of 1952 was created due to the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1951.
• Justice N Chandrasekhara Aiyar, a retired justice of the Supreme Court, was its chairman in 1953
• In the 1952 delimitation, the cap on the Lok Sabha seats was set at 500.
• The commission recommended the increase of the seats in the Lok Sabha from 489 to 494.

• A decade later, in 1963, the seats in the Lok Sabha rose to 525 owing to an increase in the average population per constituency.

• The delimitation commission of 1973 was chaired by Justice J L Kapur, a retired justice of the Supreme Court.
• The commission recommended the increase of the seats in the Lok Sabha from 522 to 542 (later increased to 543 with the addition of one more seat for the new state of Sikkim).
• It also recommended an increase in the total number of assembly seats across all states and Union Territories in the country from 3771 to 3997 (including 32 for Sikkim's legislative assembly).

• The most recent delimitation commission was set up on 12 July 2002 after the 2001 census with Justice Kuldip Singh, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairperson.
• While a Delimitation Commission was constituted in 2002, its role was limited to redrawing constituency boundaries based on the 2001 census, without altering the number of seats allocated to each state.

• After every Census, Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act to redefine constituency boundaries.

• The total number of seats in state assemblies is adjusted according to the Delimitation Act after each Census.

• Article 330 of the Constitution of India reserves seats in the House of the People for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• It also specifies how many seats should be reserved in each state or union territory.

• Article 332 of the Constitution of India reserves seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Legislative Assemblies of states.
• It also specifies how many seats should be reserved for each group.

• Article 329 bars courts from questioning laws on delimitation or seat allotment.

• States with populations under six million were excluded from the population-based delimitation exercise.

• Freezes the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states and the division of territorial constituencies based on the 1971 Census.
• This freeze was intended to protect states that successfully implemented population control measures from losing their representation in Parliament.

• Allowed readjustment and rationalization of territorial constituencies based on the 1991 Census.
• However, it did not permit an increase or decrease in the number of seats allotted to each state in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
• The main objective was to maintain uniformity in population representation without disturbing the total number of seats.

• Changed the basis of delimitation from the 1991 Census to the 2001 Census.
• Like the 84th Amendment, it did not alter the number of seats allocated to each state in Parliament and State Assemblies.
• It was primarily aimed at ensuring fairer representation based on more recent population data.

• In India, delimitation is a constitutional mandate, with Article 82 of the Constitution requiring the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to be adjusted after each census.

• Delimitation ensures fair representation in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies by adjusting the number of seats based on population changes.
• It provides equal representation to equal segments of population thus upholding the democratic principle of "one citizen-one voteone value."

• Delimitation readjusts the boundaries of territorial constituencies, delimitation aims to ensure equitable distribution of seats among different regions, considering population shifts over time.

• Delimitation exercise conducted by the delimitation commission specifies seats in areas with sizable scheduled castes and scheduled tribes population which are to be reserved for those communities.

• Delimitation helps maintain the balance of power between the states and the central government by ensuring that each state's representation in Parliament reflects its population.

• As populations change, delimitation ensures that constituencies remain representative of the current demographics, preventing disparities in representation.

• Delimitation based solely on population growth disregards the progress of states with stable or declining populations. States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, which have effectively controlled their populations, may lose political representation despite their significant contributions to the national economy (around 35% of India’s GDP).
• Southern states may feel penalized, leading to regional imbalances and frustration over reduced political influence.

• Delimitation could shift political power towards northern and eastern states with higher population growth, disrupting India’s federal balance.
• This may deepen the North-South divide, marginalizing southern states and weakening the federal structure, which could spark political instability.

• Regional parties like DMK (Tamil Nadu) and JD(S) (Karnataka) could lose representation due to seat reductions, diminishing their bargaining power in national politics.
• This could lead to stronger regional resistance to central policies and potentially fuel separatist movements, undermining national unity.

• Rural areas with larger populations could gain more political influence, even though urban regions contribute more to the economy.
• This may lead to policies that prioritize rural interests over urban needs, potentially compromising governance efficiency.

• The new delimitation process could disturb the allocation of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and women in various states.
• The shifting of constituencies might reduce or alter the number of reserved seats, especially in states with declining populations, potentially impacting the representation and empowerment of these marginalized groups.
• This could undermine the socio-economic empowerment efforts for SC, ST, and women, reducing their participation in the political process and limiting their voice in national governance.

• The South’s parliamentary representation could drop from 24 per cent to 19 per cent, while Hindi-speaking states could see an increase of about 60 per cent.

• Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra are among India’s highest tax-contributing states but receive only 30 percent of their contributions in return.
• In contrast, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh receive 250-350 per cent more than what they contribute.
• Southern states argue that economic contribution should be a factor in representation

• The Women’s Reservation Act, mandating 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and state assemblies, will also play a role in delimitation.
• Additionally, the process will affect SC/ST seat reservations, adding another layer of complexity to the issue.

• Southern states are concerned about gerrymandering that is a practice of manipulating electoral boundaries to unfairly favor a party or group, distorting fair representation.

• Southern states' population control efforts could lead to fewer seats in delimitation, unfairly favoring high-fertility states and discouraging good governance.
• It leads to criticism of good policies and may prove counter productive. E.g., some politicians considered incentives for larger families.

• This model introduces a weighted allocation formula where representation is not solely based on population but considers economic and governance factors.

Formula for Seat Allocation: Factors Considered:

• Population Weight (50%): Traditional population-based seat allocation
• Economic Weight (30%): GDP contribution, tax revenue, industrial output
• Governance Weight (20%): Literacy rate, healthcare infrastructure, per capita income, HDI

• Rewards states with good economic and social indicators.
• Encourages better governance rather than just population growth.
• Reduces resentment from southern states.

• A state’s population still determines its representation, but with diminishing returns—a larger population does not automatically mean proportionally more seats.
• States with smaller but stable populations retain a baseline minimum representation.

Implementation:

• Define baseline representation (e.g., every state gets at least X seats).
• Apply a logarithmic scale to population-based seat allocation, ensuring a cap on extreme variations.

• Prevents extreme underrepresentati on of states with low population growth.
• Encourages national unity by balancing interests of all regions.

• Instead of reducing seats from some states, the total number of Lok Sabha seats should be increased to accommodate population shifts.

Implementation:

• Increase Lok Sabha seats from 543 to 600+.
• Allocate new seats to growing states without reducing seats from states with stable populations.

• Ensures northern states get fair representation without penalizing the south.
• Politically feasible as no state loses seats.

• Lok Sabha remains based on population, but southern and low-growth states get increased Rajya Sabha representation to compensate.
• Rajya Sabha’s role in national policy making is strengthened, ensuring these states retain strong influence.

Implementation:

• Increase Rajya Sabha seats for states losing representation in Lok Sabha.
• Give Rajya Sabha more veto power in key national policies.

• Maintains balance between population-based representation and federal unity.
• Avoids need for constitutional amendments in Lok Sabha seat allocation.

• Instead of using seat allocation as the only method of balancing power, states with good education, health, and economic indicators receive national policy advantages.
• These could include higher financial grants, priority in infrastructure projects, or greater policy influence.

Implementation:

• Create a Governance Index that evaluates states annually.
• Tie national funding and policy influence to governance performance.

• Encourages states to focus on longterm development instead of just population growth.
• Politically feasible without changing seat allocation drastically.

• Postpone delimitation to 2041, allowing all states time to stabilize their population growth rates.

• Prevents backlash and instability.
• Encourages nationwide population control before seat allocation changes.

• The number of seats in the House of Representatives (the equivalent of our Lok Sabha) has been capped at 435 since 1913.
• The population of the country has increased almost four times from 9.4 crore in 1911 to an estimated 33.4 crore in 2023.
• The seats among the States are redistributed after every Census through the ‘method of equal proportion’.
• This does not result in any significant gain or loss for any of the States.
• For example, based on the Census of 2020, the reapportionment has resulted in no change in the number of seats for 37 States.
• Texas gained two seats, five other States gained one seat each and seven States lost one seat each.

• In the European Union (EU) Parliament which consists of 720 members, the number of seats is divided between 27 member countries based on the principle of ‘degressive proportionality’.
• Under this principle, the ratio of population to the number of seats shall increase as the population increases. For example, Denmark with a population of around 60 lakh has 15 seats (average population of 4 lakh per member) as against Germany with a population of 8.3 crore having 96 seats (average population of 8.6 lakh per member).