Written by Salem Dharanidharan and Dakshana Indumathi
The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M K Stalin, on Saturday, chaired a Joint Action Committee for Fair Delimitation with three CMs, one Deputy CM and other key political leaders from seven states. The JAC managed to unite different states, across regional and political lines, against unfair delimitation. The meeting also raised the ante on key issues in our country: The erosion of states’ rights and the increasing centralisation of power by the Union government.
Understanding delimitation
Article 82 of the Constitution requires that the number of Lok Sabha seats per state be recalibrated by the Delimitation Commission after each census based on population. The last delimitation exercise took place based on the 1971 population census. In 1976, the Indira Gandhi government suspended the delimitation process for 25 years to encourage population control.
In 2001, the A B Vajpayee government, recognising the regional disparities in population growth, further suspended the same for another 25 years. With the freeze on delimitation set to expire in 2026, Article 82 mandates the formation of a Delimitation Commission to redraw constituencies based on the upcoming population Census.
While the freeze was undertaken to ensure states with effective population control were not disincentivised, northern states have contended that their one vote was disproportionately low. For instance, a parliamentarian in Uttar Pradesh represents three to four million people while a parliamentarian in Sikkim represents 0.6 million people.
With the 2021 Census delayed by the Union government, the delimitation exercise would be scheduled much sooner than the initial timeline of the post-2031 Census, unless another amendment is introduced in Parliament. Since the Delimitation Commission operates under a constitutional mandate, challenging its decisions in a court of law would be difficult. This is why states such as Tamil Nadu are calling for an amendment to Article 82 before the 2026 deadline.
Where does the problem lie?
The crux of the issue lies in the disparity in population growth rates across states. Firstly, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), a demographic indicator that estimates the average number of children a woman gives birth to during her reproductive years, is highly skewed across different states.
Southern and eastern states reached the replacement rate of fertility by the early 2000s. Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal have TFRs between 1.4 and 1.8, far below the replacement level of 2.1. In contrast, states in the Hindi heartland, such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, have TFRs well above the replacement level and are estimated to take longer to achieve replacement rate. This implies that the population divergence from the 1970s continues to plague our country.
If delimitation proceeds purely on the basis of population, the states that successfully controlled their population will end up losing their representation in Parliament and the high-population states would gain seats solely based on their failure to effectively control population growth in their state.
Delimitation’s implications: Beyond the numbers
During the inauguration of the new Parliament building, the Prime Minister hinted at expanding the Lok Sabha to accommodate more MPs. If delimitation is undertaken based on population alone (assuming that the total number of seats increases to 848), five states (Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan) would have 367 seats making up 47 per cent of the total seats and the five southern states would have a mere 164 seats at 19 per cent representation (a fall from the current 24 per cent). Based on the fertility rates, if delimitation continues on the basis of population, future delimitation exercises will further reduce the political influence of southern states, making their representation negligible.
The delimitation issue is beyond just numbers. It determines the future of states and the Indian federal system. The reduction in parliamentary representation will have far-reaching irreversible consequences.
First, the loss in representation risks making southern states electorally irrelevant. With only 19 per cent of the total seats, the people’s representatives from the southern states will have minimal to no say in the forming of the Union government or framing of major policies. This would impact every aspect of people’s lives, from economic policies to administrative decisions.
An analysis of the 2024-2025 State Budgets showcases that 72 per cent of Bihar’s revenue and 54 per cent of Uttar Pradesh’s revenue came from the Union government in the form of share in central taxes and grants-in-aid; for Tamil Nadu, the figure stands at a mere 24 per cent. With reduced representation in Parliament, states with higher population growth would get to dictate union budget allocation. This would sideline the development of southern states and create an imbalance where states contributing to the finances of the country would have less control over the revenues that they generate.
In terms of the policy overreach by the Union government, the National Education Policy (NEP) is an appropriate example. Union Minister of Education Dharmendra Pradhan cited Tamil Nadu’s refusal to fully endorse the National Education Policy (NEP) as the reason for the denial of funds for the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan — a violation of Tamil Nadu’s rights as a state. Similar incidents have taken place with states like Kerala through the weaponisation of fiscal policy.
India’s federal structure was designed to accommodate its vast diversity. This diversity is not just cultural and linguistic, but also developmental. If representation is determined solely based on population, it will create disparities instead of resolving them. When the concept of delimitation was originally formulated in the Constitution, India’s demographic landscape was starkly different from what it is today. Continuing the exercise solely on the basis of population, without considering the broader implications, threatens to undermine the tenets of democracy and federalism in India.
The JAC convened by CM Stalin marks a decisive moment in the fight to protect federalism. As he aptly described, this is a “landmark event” in ensuring that the voices of all states, regardless of their population size, continue to shape the nation’s governance. Without reforms on delimitation, state rights and curbing the unchecked centralisation agenda, the “Union of States” tenet in our Constitution risks being permanently fractured.
Dharanidharan is state deputy secretary of DMK’s IT wing; Indumathi is a political consultant
