In 2001, the then Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government extended the freeze on the delimitation of the Lok Sabha and Assembly seats on the basis of the 1971 Census till 2026. Introducing a Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha in this regard on August 21, 2001, then Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley said that delimitation should be frozen for another 25 years as there are “some states which have implemented the family planning programme very effectively and there are some states where it has not been effectively implemented”. Senior Congress leader Shivraj Patil then proposed a formula based on a proportional increase of seats to ensure that states which successfully controlled their population were not penalised. Currently, a delimitation storm is brewing in the South with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president M K Stalin emerging as its key voice opposing the population-based exercise over fears that southern states would lose out on the Lok Sabha seats. An all-party meeting that Stalin recently held in Chennai asked the Centre that the 1971 Census should remain the basis for any allocation of seats through delimitation for 30 more years beyond 2026. On August 21, 2001, participating in the debate on the Constitutional Amendment Bill, Shivraj Patil, while asserting that he would vote as per his Congress party’s line in favour of the Bill, expressed concern over the fact that MPs in India had to represent very large numbers of people because of the 1971 Census figures being used even in 2001. Patil suggested that the number of seats of states that had succeeded in controlling their population be increased so that an MP represented not too large a population, and that the seats of states that had not been successful in family planning be increased in the same proportion so that the formula could be acceptable to all states. While supporting the Bill, Patil disagreed with Jaitley that the freeze would incentivise family planning. “What was the population in 1975? It was nearly 70 crore. In 2001, we are nearly 100 crore, and in 2026, we would be nearly 140 crore…” he said. Questioning Jaitley’s contention, Patil added, “To think that because the number (of seats) is frozen, population will not increase is not correct,” claiming that some other law like not allowing people with more than two children to contest elections would be a far more realistic measure for population control. While agreeing that some states had a “valid objection” that they may be penalised for implementing family planning better, Patil said, “It can be possible for us to find a formula which can say that on the basis of increase in the population of a state that has implemented the family planning programmes in a proper manner, increase in the seats in other states should be allowed so that no state is allowed to have an advantage over any state that has implemented the family planning programme in a proper manner.” He then pointed out that while an MP was on an average representing 10 lakh people in 2001, the number would rise to 15 lakh because of the freeze by 2026. He added that the Outer Delhi and Thane Lok Sabha constituencies had nearly 30 lakh voters in 2001, noting it was far too large. “What is the number of members sitting in the People’s National Congress of China? It is 3,000,” he said, calling for an increase in seats as he compared India with the country closest in population to it. On his part, Jaitley, while underlining the rationale of the population imbalance between states for extending the delimitation freeze for 25 years, pointed out that 2026 was also the target year in the National Population Policy for the population of India to stabilise. Jaitley said that while the total number of the Lok Sabha seats would remain the same, and the shares of the states would also remain the same, delimitation within each state would be undertaken to ensure that constituencies within each state have roughly the same number of voters. During the debate, CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee, while supporting the Bill, rejected the idea that it could boost family planning as a principle, asserting, “After all, nobody produces children on the basis of who will be representing his son in Parliament.” While the Bill found wide support and easily sailed through, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) opposed it during the debate, underlining that allocation of seats should be based on the population of a state. “Democracy is based on the power of votes and the fate of the governments is decided by the number of votes. So the number of Parliamentary seats of a state should be based on the population of the state,” he said, adding that while the numbers in the House were stacked in favour of the Bill, “it is not based on the common principle of justice.” The Bill was passed with 297 votes in its favour and just two votes against it – one being of Republican Party of India (A) leader Ramdas Athawale, who is currently a Union minister. The Bill was later cleared by the Rajya Sabha. The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, extended the freeze on fresh delimitation, applicable since the 1971 Census, till 2026 as a "motivational measure" for state governments to pursue family planning. "Government has also decided to undertake readjustment and rationalization of territorial constituencies in the States, without altering the number of seats allotted to each State in the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of the States, including the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes constituencies, on the basis of the population ascertained at the Census for the year 1991, so as to remove the imbalance caused due to uneven growth of population/electorate in different constituencies," the Bill’s statement of its “Objects and Reasons” stated. India had earlier carried out a delimitation exercise only three times after the 1951, 1961 and 1971 Census. The 1973 delimitation was the last time the number of Lok Sabha seats was raised. In the 2002 exercise, merely the constituency boundaries were redrawn without changing the number of seats allotted to states.
