As the 2026 deadline for lifting the freeze on the redrawing of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies approaches, southern States are feeling they would be at disadvantage as they have controlled population growth
The democratic nations are governed by the public representatives who are elected by the public through universal franchise and, India is one of the biggest democratic countries in the world with a population of 142 crore people. Article 82 of the constitution lays down the procedure of delimitation of constituencies for determining the number of Lok Sabha (House of People) seats and similarly, Article 170 lays down the provisions for determining the strength of State Assemblies. This process empowers the Parliament to constitute a Delimitation Commission after passing the Delimitation Act after every census. The Delimitation Commission is headed by a Supreme Court Judge and its job is to redraw the boundaries and numbers of constituencies based on ‘one citizen, one voter with one value’ and works on the principle of equity while distributing the population. So far, historically delimitation was conducted in 1951, 1961 and 1971 after the census and adjusted the number of seats and the boundaries of the constituencies.
However, to promote population control the government of India led by Indira Gandhi through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 froze the delimitation process till 2001. Through yet another 84th Constitutional Amendment, the freeze was further extended from 2001 to 2026.
Now, the issue of delimitation has again gained momentum and the southern States who have done exceedingly well compared to north Indian States in controlling the population now are crying hoarse about population — based delimitation along with some regional parties in some states like the Samanata party in Uttarakhand are asking for adopting geographic area base approach considering the local factors and difficult hilly terrains.
However, so far previously in the delimitation process, the Central Government as stated above constituted the Delimitation Commission after the population census by enacting the Delimitation Act, which then uses the latest population data to redraw boundaries and determine seat allocations within states, while also designating reserved seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) based on their population proportions as per Articles 330 and 332.
The Commission consults associate members — sitting MPs and MLAs — but retains final decision — making authority. Once finalised, its orders are published in the Gazette of India and laid before Parliament and State Assemblies without scope for any kind of modification.
This time, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has to create a consensus on how to deal with conflicting interests while dealing with delimitation exercise. Most of the South Indian States have expressed fears that if delimitation occurs based on population criteria they will lose Lok Sabha seats as the fertility rate of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is 1.5, Kerala and Karnataka at 1.6 and Tamil Nadu the lowest at 1.4 well below the replacement rate on 2.1.
On the other hand, the fertility rates of most of the Northern States are higher than the replacement rate of 2.1. Bihar has the highest fertility rate of 3.1 in the country, followed by Meghalaya and Madhya Pradesh at 2.9 Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan at 2.4, and Haryana at 2. Among northern or western States only Maharashtra with 1.4, Gujarat with 1.6, Punjab 1.5 and J and K 1.4 and Uttarakhand with 1.8 are below the replacement rate.
So, it is quite natural that a conflicting situation is evolving if the population is made the sole criteria. A few Opposition Chief Ministers a few days ago met in Chennai under the stewardship of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and demanded that delimitation exercise should be postponed for another 25 years from 2026. Southern States, which contribute disproportionately to India’s GDP and tax revenue, fear diminished representation will weaken their say in national policy-making, exacerbating north — south disparities.
The linkage of delimitation with the Women’s Reservation Act (2023), which reserves one — third of seats for women post-delimitation, has further strengthened the Opposition.
Similar demands are also coming from the people of hill states, particularly from Uttarakhand, where the people of hills fear a massive reduction in assembly seats due to migration of population thus threatening the fundamentals of the creation of a hill states considering the geography and culture of the people necessitating a different planned way of development.
Uttarakhnad’s 70 — member Legislative Assembly currently reflects a population — based delimitation from 2008, with 34 seats in hill districts and 36 in the plains, despite the hills covering over 90 per cent of the State’s area. During the last delimitation, the State hills lost six seats due to migration from hills to plains — over 32 lakh people since 2000, which has reduced hill populations, skewing representation further toward urban plains like Dehradun and Haridwar.
An area — based approach could rebalance this by allocating more seats to hill districts like Badrinath constituency covers 4,631 sq km with poor road connectivity. Similar is the situation in Uttarkashi, Pithoragarh, Chamoli and all other districts. Uttarakhand gained statehood for a hill — centric development after decades of neglect within Uttar Pradesh. Population — based delimitation has exacerbated this neglect as hill districts lost six seats in 2006 — 2008, slowing development and fuelling migration, leaving over 1,700 “ghost villages” by 2020. Thus in a nutshell, as time has changed and change is inevitable our Constitution allows flexibility with dynamism reflecting the aspirations of changing society, the country thus needs to amend the population — based delimitation exercise. The country can ill afford encouragement for population growth any more. The delimitation principle allows population criteria in Articles 82 and 170 to be ‘so far as practicable’ while ensuring equal representation. There is a precedent in Article 371 with special provisions for northeastern states like Manipur and Nagaland, where delimitation considers factors beyond population, including terrain and administrative needs. Uttarakhand, a Himalayan State with 92.7 per cent of its 53,483 square kilometres classified as hilly, certainly qualifies for similar exceptions, given its rugged topography and sparse population density in hill districts. Similarly, in plain areas, some sort of limit should be fixed so that equity between north and south states in terms of several seats in Lok Sabha does not compromise the achievements of population control in these states. A state — specific approach could be evolved including consideration of digressively proportionate representation like in Europe especially for the plain areas. Whatever, the issue of delimitation has to be dealt with by all political parties and can no longer be side — stepped.
(The author is former Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education and former Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Horticulture, Animal Resources and Forest Department, Government of Tripura. Views expressed are personal)
