Delimitation Debate: Balancing Population and Federalism in India

• Delimitation Overview: Delimitation involves reallocating Lok Sabha and state assembly seats and redrawing constituency boundaries after each census, as mandated by Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution.
• Constitutional Provisions: The Constitution requires seat readjustment post-census to ensure proportional representation, but amendments deferred this until 2026 to encourage population control.
• Historical Context: Delimitation occurred after the 1951, 1961, and 1971 censuses, with Lok Sabha seats increasing from 489 (1951-52) to 543 (1977, based on 1971 Census).
• Freeze on Seats: The 42nd Amendment (1976) and subsequent amendments froze seat numbers until 2026 to prevent states with higher population growth from gaining disproportionate representation.
• Population Disparities: Uneven population growth since 1971 favors northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan over southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh, which controlled fertility rates.
• Southern Concerns: Southern states fear reduced parliamentary seats post-2026 due to lower population growth, potentially diminishing their political influence.
• Federalism vs. Democracy: The debate pits democratic principles (one person, one vote) against federalism, which seeks balanced representation across states regardless of population size.
• Past Delimitation Trends:
• • 1951-52: 489 Lok Sabha seats; 1957: 494; 1967: 520 (based on 1961 Census).
  • 1967 adjustments: Andhra Pradesh lost 2 seats, Madras 2, Uttar Pradesh 1; Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, and others gained.
  • 1971: 518 seats; 1977: 542 seats, with gains for Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and new states like Sikkim.
  • Current: 543 seats, including Daman and Diu’s addition.
• Apprehensions: Southern states’ fears lack strong evidence but stem from potential seat losses, while northern states stand to gain due to higher population growth.
• Public Policy Impact: Population control policies influenced state demographics, complicating delimitation’s population-based approach.
• Representation Debate: The principle of equal representation per voter is questioned, as constituency size does not alter an elected representative’s weight in Parliament.
• Constitutional Criticism: Some who criticized government actions as unconstitutional now oppose delimitation’s constitutional mandate, seeking to freeze or delay it.
• Ludicrous Proposals: Suggestions to increase population growth to counter delimitation fears have emerged, reflecting heightened emotions.
• Proposed Solutions: Discussions include capping Lok Sabha seats at 543 to maintain status quo or increasing seats (e.g., to 848) with proportional allocation, though both disadvantage southern and smaller states.
• Middle Path: Alternatives like population density or economic contribution as criteria for seat allocation are suggested to balance disparities.
• National Consensus: A reasoned debate is urged to reconcile democratic and federal principles, avoiding emotional or divisive narratives.

Key Terms:

• Delimitation: Process of redrawing constituency boundaries and reallocating seats based on population.
• Federalism: System ensuring balanced power between central and state governments.
• Lok Sabha: Lower house of India’s Parliament, currently with 543 elected seats.
• Census: Decennial population count used as the basis for delimitation.
• 42nd Amendment: 1976 constitutional change freezing seat allocation to promote population control.
• Population Control: Policies to limit population growth, impacting state-wise demographics.
• Proportional Representation: Allocating seats based on population to ensure equal voter value.
• Constituency: Geographic area represented by an elected member in Parliament or assembly.

Link To The Original Article – https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-issue-with-delimitations-population-based-process/article69436323.ece