The Joint Action Committee (JAC) led by Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin saw a major push against delimitation. The main assertion of the JAC is to extend the constitution freeze on delimitation for another 25 years and also for the presence of more dialogue and transparency from the center on the process of delimitation.
Delimitation is the process of redrawing electoral constituencies based on the changes in population provided by the census. This means that a largely populated state would have a greater number of Lok Sabha seats than a less populated state. But since, Lok Sabha seats are also a matter of representation, a less populated state could run the risk of having less voice in the parliament. Initially after 1947, delimitation was carried out after every Census (1951, 1961, 1971, etc.) until 1976 when the number of seats was frozen. This constitutional freeze on delimitation was extended in subsequent various successions until currently as its deadline approaches in 2026. This leads to the second issue, that led to the freeze. South Indian states have lower population growth rates due to better education, healthcare, and family planning policies contrary to the north. These still have higher rates of population growth.
The freeze was to not punish the southern states, with diminished representation in the parliament, for successfully implementing family planning as per center’s recommendation. This issue was realized and the electoral constituencies followed the census of 1976 until recently when signs of new delimitations materialized. If the electoral constituencies were to be rearranged based on the current census, the representation of south India might fall from 140 of 543 seats to 165 of 848, i.e., from over 1/4th of the Lok Sabha to less han 1/5th. This would imply that the political interests of northern states would be hegemonic.
On the other hand, a fair distribution of seats due to delimitation ensures that every citizen’s vote has equal weight. But this still comes with issues of instability caused by larger representation of few states. A potential solution to this issue could be the bifurcation of states like UP into new ones. This could ensure the same benefits of enhanced volume of representation, while not financially and politically burdening the southern states unlike when it is a single homogenous state. Moreover, this may bring more focused human development and economic needs in successor states. The national ruling parties may be enticed to leave these states intact if it is to their advantage but it can easily backfire if electoral outcomes reverse. Thus, having states with overbearingly large representation may be detrimental to the stability of the union.
The status-quo freeze on delimitation and transparency of the process are contentious issues. The potential advantages of delimitation are overshadowed by a plethora of issues. The current form of delimitation also does not ensure a direct improvement in livelihood of overrepresented states. A delimitation in context of such problems may not significantly yield better outcomes.
