A dispute has erupted between BJP and opposition parties over the proposed population-based delimitation exercise.
NEW DELHI: A war of words has erupted between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Central government and the opposition Congress, along with various regional parties, particularly those from southern states. These parties fear that the proposed delimitation exercise will negatively impact their states by reducing their share of Lok Sabha seats. The delimitation of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly constituencies is set to take place based on the first Census conducted after 2026. The 2021 Census, which was originally scheduled, was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and further delayed by the central
Delimitation refers to the process of determining the number of seats and redrawing the boundaries of territorial constituencies in each state for both the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies. It also involves reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in these legislative bodies. Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution mandate that the number of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, along with their territorial divisions, must be readjusted after every Census. This process is carried out by the Delimitation Commission, which is established through an act of Parliament. Similar exercises were previously conducted following the 1951, 1961, and 1971 Censuses.
The current debate on delimitation is focused on only one of its two aspects. There is no opposition to the routine redrawing of parliamentary and Assembly constituency boundaries within states or to increasing the number of Assembly seats for any state, as these changes do not impact the federal balance. The real issue lies in the reapportionment of Lok Sabha seats among states and Union Territories, which has been frozen for the past 50 years. The key question is whether this freeze should be lifted, extended, or made permanent.
The original constitutional provision for regular revision was based on the democratic principle of “one person, one vote, one value,” ensuring that each legislator represents roughly the same number of people. Large deviations from this principle mean that votes in smaller constituencies carry more weight than those in larger ones. For instance, while over 25 lakh people are represented by one MP in Bihar, the number is less than 15 lakh in Tamil Nadu. This results in a disparity where a voter in Tamil Nadu has nearly double the influence of a voter in Bihar. While the Constitution allowed for exceptions for smaller states like Goa and Arunachal Pradesh, where representation was adjusted to protect their interests, these were cases of “asymmetrical federalism.” This exception should now be expanded to account for demographic shifts that the Constitution-makers could not have predicted. The issue is not about the success or failure of population control policies but about broader demographic trends—wealthier states and social groups tend to experience faster population declines. It would be inaccurate for governments to claim sole credit for this, and such reasoning could also be unfairly extended to marginalised groups.
An analysis by scholars Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson projects that if Lok Sabha seats are reallocated based on the estimated 2026 population, South Indian states would be the biggest losers—Kerala and Tamil Nadu would each lose eight seats, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana together would see a reduction of eight seats, and Karnataka would lose two seats. Other non-Hindi-speaking states, including West Bengal (down four seats), Odisha (down three), and Punjab (down one), would also face losses. In contrast, the primary beneficiaries would be Hindi-speaking northern states—Uttar Pradesh would gain 11 seats, Bihar 10, Rajasthan six, and Madhya Pradesh four. This shift could significantly disrupt the already fragile balance between Hindi and non-Hindi-speaking states, particularly in the South. The Hindi heartland, which currently holds 226 out of 543 seats, would increase its share to 259—close to a majority. Meanwhile, the southern states, which currently hold 132 seats and can form alliances with eastern or western states to block constitutional amendments, would lose this critical leverage in the post-delimitation scenario.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has opposed the population-based delimitation exercise, expressing concerns that southern states would lose Lok Sabha seats. During an all-party meeting in Chennai on Wednesday, he argued that the 1971 Census should remain the basis for seat allocation for 30 more years beyond 2026. Stalin asserted that if the number of Parliamentary seats is increased, the proportional distribution should still be based on the 1971 Census. This would ensure that even if the total Lok Sabha seats exceed the current 543, each state retains the same share as per the 1971 allocation.
Earlier, Stalin wrote to the Chief Ministers of Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, West Bengal, Punjab, and Odisha, as well as party leaders, inviting them to join Tamil Nadu in forming a Joint Action Committee (JAC) to strongly oppose the delimitation process, which he described as an unfair exercise. He also proposed holding the first JAC meeting in Chennai on March 22, urging leaders to unite and strategise a collective response. In his letter, Stalin noted that reports indicate the delimitation process may be carried out based on population, with two possible approaches under consideration.