Opinion On delimitation, Centre must listen to the concerns of southern states

In 1971, an MP used to represent roughly 10 lakh people; today s/he is representing about 25 lakh people depending on the state they represent. This is adversely impacting the quality of representation. The same is true for MLAs. It genuinely needs rationalisation. Bringing it down to the 1971 level means 1,430 MPs in Lok Sabha. The new parliament has only 888 Lok Sabha seats. Even if all seats are filled, an MP will still represent over 16 lakh people.

The greater problem pertains to apportionment of LS seats among states. The southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, which have had greater success with population control, would naturally have a conflict with Article 81(2)(a) of the Constitution that requires the apportionment of seats to states be done in such a manner that the seat-population ratio, as far as practicable, is same for all states. If the provision is followed in letter and spirit in delimitation, the southern states, smaller northern states like Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and many Northeastern states stand to lose.

However, the Delimitation Commission has several options for apportionment of LS seats among states. First, it can adhere to the constitutional provision of population-seat ratio based on the latest census. Second, it can adhere to the population-seat ratio based on the latest census with some weightage for population control. Third, it can adopt a formula for allocating seats to a state in proportion to its existing seat share in the LS. Fourth, it can freeze the present apportionment of seats to states in the LS, and distribute new seats among states on the basis of the proportion of their population in the national population. Fifth, it can allocate seats to states in LS on the basis of the proportion of their population as determined in the latest census, but compensate them in Rajya Sabha by equalising the number of seats to all states. Sixth, it can extend the freeze further; or, finally, it can have a different seat-population ratio for states that have performed better in population control since 1971. All, except the first, will warrant constitutional amendments.

The delimitation exercise will surely give rise to many narratives. Any route taken by the delimitation commission, other than the constitutionally mandated one, will make “equality of vote” a bone of contention. It may lead to a demand that the same formula be applied in financial allocations to such states. So, the metrics of “population control” may become a dominant narrative in federal financial relations. Gerrymandering may become a dominant narrative especially due to the Women’s Reservation Bill (106th Constitutional Amendment) that gives one-third reservation to women in Parliament and legislative assemblies. Since there are no constitutional guidelines for reserving women seats, the administrative machinery may resort to arbitrary drawing or redrawing of electoral boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies reserved for women. There are issues of rotation of women’s seats as well. People may be resentful of the financial load on the taxpayers owing to the provisions of pension to legislators when most government employees are craving for pension after retirement. Many other sensitive issues need to be addressed to ensure that delimitation aligns well with our democratic essence. The delimitation commission must maintain greater transparency as neither their decision, nor the commission, comes under judicial review.

M K Stalin has called an all-party meeting on March 5 to discuss the impact of delimitation on TN. Even Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah has voiced his apprehensions. Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu has withdrawn the law that debarred persons with more than two children from contesting local civic polls and gave a call for more children. Though the Union Home Minister Amit Shah has assured that no state will lose a single seat, the concerns of southern states are genuine and should be given all seriousness they deserve. Delimitation must preserve fraternity and federalism besides strengthening democracy and demographic control measures.

The writer is Director, Centre for the Study of Society and Politics (CSSP), Kanpur