Opinion India’s Census delay and the problem of unequal representation

Strictly speaking, the existing electoral constituencies in India — from villages in Kerala to urban centres in Uttar Pradesh — reflect population data that is nearly a decade-and-a-half old. However, this is not just an administrative lapse; it strikes at the heart of political equality — the idea that every vote shall carry the same value. Thus, the promise of “one person, one vote, one value” has weakened in India, not due to any deliberate malice but delay in conducting census and delimitation.

Was it how it was supposed to be? Certainly not. Since Independence, just like clock-work, India has conducted a census every ten years, barring the 16th Census which was postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Census is not just a periodic statistical exercise; it has a direct bearing on the electoral constituencies, among other things. The Constitution is clear that electoral boundaries must be redrawn after every census. Article 82 of the Constitution directly links delimitation (the process of drawing electoral boundaries) to the Census data. This ensures that Parliamentary and state assembly constituencies reflect the actual size and distribution of the population.

Surprisingly, the legal framework that guides the census and delimitation exercises has been vague. The Census Act, 1948 does not specify how often a Census must be conducted or if the data shall be published within any fixed timeline. Similarly, the Delimitation Acts which are passed by the legislature after each Census have been silent on how long the Delimitation Commission can take to complete its work. As a result, this has been a system without deadlines, leaving the pace of two of the most fundamental democratic exercises at the discretion of the government of the day.

This has led to real consequences. Take the 2002 Delimitation Commission. It was initially directed to use population data from the 1991 Census for shaping constituencies. The Commission was expected to conclude its work in 2008, but by then 18 years would have passed since the 1991 census and seven years since the 2001 census. Eventually, a constitutional amendment was passed to allow the Commission to use the 2001 Census data. This exposed a fundamental flaw: Without a fixed legal timeline, India risks drawing electoral constituencies that are out of sync with its population reality. The result? A representation crisis in India’s fast growing cities which still remain tied to outdated electoral constituencies, even as their population multiplied.

Some democracies have learned this lesson. In Indonesia, the Constitution itself requires that a census be conducted every 10 years, and electoral redistricting follows in a timely manner. The Philippines goes further, holding a census every five years, with constituency boundaries adjusted soon after to ensure fair representation. Thailand, too, links its census cycle directly to redistricting, creating a predictable timetable that prevents political delay. The logic is straightforward: If elections are to reflect the will of the people, the boundaries must reflect where the people actually live.

By contrast, India remains in limbo. The 2021 Census has now been rescheduled. Every delay in conducting and publishing Census data pushes back the possibility of delimitation. This can have a cascading effect: Fast-growing urban areas remain under-represented in legislatures, while constituencies in slower-growing regions retain disproportionate weight. As a result, citizens are unequally represented in the very institutions meant to represent them.

The solution is equally straightforward. Parliament must introduce legal timelines that make both Census and delimitation time-bound and predictable. This can be done in four steps. First, amend the Census Act, 1948 to make it mandatory to hold a Census every 10 years. Second, mandate that Census data relevant for delimitation shall be published within a year of enumeration. Third, amend Article 82 of the Constitution to ensure that delimitation begins within six months of data publication. Finally, the new Delimitation Act should fix a hard two-year deadline for the Commission to complete its task, from the day it is set-up to the day its orders are published.

These are not radical ideas. They merely bring India in line with democratic best practices and inject predictability into processes that have been treated as ad hoc exercises. More importantly, they reaffirm a basic constitutional promise: That each citizen’s vote should carry equal weight, no matter where they live.

India is proud of being the world’s largest democracy. But democracy is not just about holding regular elections. It is about ensuring that elections are fair, representative, and based on current realities. Without an updated Census and timely delimitation, our electoral map risks becoming a relic of the past, disconnected from the lives of the people it is meant to represent.

The delay since 2011 has already pushed us to the edge of this problem. To prevent further slippage, India needs to fix a clock to its most basic democratic processes. Counting people and redrawing constituencies are not just bureaucratic rituals; they are the very foundation of political equality. And equality, after all, is what keeps a democracy alive.

Dalmia is a Research Fellow at Charkha, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s Constitutional Law Team. Gupta is Milon K Banerji Senior Resident Fellow at Charkha, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy