Recently, the contentious issue of delimitation has once again sparked political tensions, with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin calling it a “direct threat” to the state’s self-respect and constitutionally safeguarded federal rights.
As India approaches the 2026 deadline, concerns are mounting over how the redrawing of electoral boundaries will impact the balance of power, particularly between states, regionally marked by the northern and southern state-divide.
Delimitation, conducted by the Delimitation Commission, is intended to ensure fair representation but has remained frozen since 1976 to prevent states with lower population growth from losing political influence.
This freeze, extended by the 84th Amendment (2001), has meant that despite India’s growing population, parliamentary seat distribution continues to be based on 1971 Census data. With the restriction set to be lifted, the upcoming delimitation will rely on the first census held after 2026.
However, delays in the 2021 Census, initially due to COVID-19 and later administrative hurdles, have added uncertainty to the process, reviving debates over its implications. Beyond redrawing boundaries, delimitation also determines the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
With the passage of the 106th Constitutional Amendment (2023) (Women’s Reservation Bill) the process will now also include reserving seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, adding another layer of complexity to an already contentious mapping exercise.
Federal breach and political anxieties
Over the past five decades, population growth in India has been uneven, with states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan experiencing a significantly higher increase compared to states such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.
As per a recent Vidhi Report, taking 2026 population projections to reallocate Lok Sabha seats would lead to a significant change: Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and undivided Andhra Pradesh would each lose eight seats, while Uttar Pradesh and Bihar would gain 11 and 10 seats, respectively.
West Bengal and Odisha might lose four and three seats, while Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh might gain six and four seats. The consequences of this change run deeper than a matter of simple numbers. A change such as this has the potential to accelerate “political centralisation,” cutting back on the power of slower-growing states and amplifying that of faster-growing states.
This could further strain Union-State relations, particularly when certain states already feel disadvantaged in fiscal allocations and policy influence.
The Assam experience has shown how redrawing constituencies can alter political representation, usually to the advantage of ruling parties and to the disadvantage of particular communities. The decline in Muslim-majority constituencies from 34 to 24 and the introduction of new reservations to the advantage of SC and ST groups have been widely condemned as an effort to dilute the electoral power of particular voter blocks in the state.
Recently, Southern states have demanded a 25-year freeze on seat redistribution, citing threats to “federalism, economic disparities, and political disempowerment.” There is a fear of political influence shifting towards northern states, reducing the bargaining power of those who had pursued national population policies (the southern states).
The economic argument further fuels opposition, as southern states contribute over 31% of India’s GDP despite making up only 21% of the population, yet face the risk of reduced parliamentary representation.
The recent Delhi election and the political unrest preceding it has emphasised the significance of federalism. This issue demands attention, as it highlights the need for reforms ensuring that all states, irrespective of size or population, have substantive agency. Strengthening federalism guarantees that states’ concerns are acknowledged within the central government and its broader decision-making processes.
Legal Dilemmas
An elected Member of Parliament (MP) back in 2014 spoke for more than 15 lakh voters on an average, and a selected MLA more than 2 lakh. This is by far the largest number in electorally democratic represented leadership across the world.
The legal connotations of delimitation underscore that judicial interference in the process is limited. Article 329(a) of the Constitution bars courts from challenging delimitation laws, limiting legal challenges after the process is completed. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle in several cases, such as Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India (2011), in which it held that postponement of delimitation is not against democracy.
Also, in R.C. Poudyal, (1994), the Court explained that complete numerical parity in representation is not required since Article 81 permits departures from proportionality “as far as practicable.” That is, although states losing seats can make the argument that delimitation compromises federalism, courts won’t act unless there is a pertinent violation of the constitution.
The doctrine of basic structure might be used to challenge a radical redistribution of seats, but judicial precedent indicates that Parliament has wide discretion in drawing electoral boundaries.
Furthermore, any effort to further delay delimitation or to bring in alternative models of representation, like weighted voting in the Rajya Sabha, would necessitate a constitutional amendment. Therefore, although delimitation is a matter of serious political and federal concern, legal recourse to challenge it is limited.
A look around the globe
It is high time that the Union government reconsiders its policy rationale behind a just population-based representation. Any further freeze on the existing number of seats in the hope of eventually reaching a political consensus will remain a pipe dream. It ceases to be an option at the compromise of political equity and fair representation.
India’s approach to delimitation could benefit from global models that balance population-based representation with federal fairness.
Degressive proportionality, used in Germany and France, ensures that while larger states get more seats, smaller states are not politically marginalised. Canada’s model provides another alternative, where a baseline number of seats is guaranteed, and population-based adjustments follow. This prevents drastic shifts in representation while maintaining ‘democratic legitimacy.’
The UK’s system, which sets parliamentary seats through political negotiation rather than strict formulas, highlights the role of consensus in apportionment.
Adopting a modified version of these models, such as gradual seat adjustments instead of abrupt redistributions, could help India mitigate the federal tensions that arise from pure population-based delimitation.
However, such changes would require constitutional amendments, making them a complex but necessary consideration for long-term political stability and federal equity. So far the Union government’s effort to acknowledge and tactfully deal with complexity of the issue has rather heightened political anxieties than quell them.
Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.
Aman Chain is a senior research assistant at Centre for New Economics Studies and co-leads at Azaad Awaaz initiative.
Najam Us Saqib is a Phd scholar at Central University of Kashmir. He is a Senior Research Analyst with Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES), OP Jindal Global University.
