Delimitation: Necessary Evil or Unnecessary Evil >>>>> Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 Delimitation 

Necessary Evil or Unnecessary Evil

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

(April 16, 2026)

Today, on April 16, 2026, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the Constitution (131^st Amendment) Bill and the Delimitation Bill, while Home Minister Amit Shah tabled the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill: three landmark bills in the Lok Sabha. These interconnected bills seek to lift the decades-long freeze on seat adjustments, expanding the Lok Sabha's capacity to 850 seats and enabling the implementation of 33% women’s reservation by 2029. This bypassed the need for a post 2026 Census, by relying on the 2011 Census data for immediate delimitation.

Moving away from traditional census cycles, the legislation proposes a new delimitation exercise based on the latest available data to redefine constituency boundaries. The initial motion for introduction cleared the Lok Sabha with 207 MPs in favour and 157 opposed. Having witnessed over six decades of the steady evolution of the ‘Largest Parliamentary Democracy’ in the world, and having worked closely with individuals at the highest levels while associating with centres of excellence in governance, with a sense of responsibility, and humility, let me present a balanced view on this.

Delimitation is evolving into what may be seen as a necessary or an unnecessary evil. The present situation represents a significant structural reset of India’s parliamentary framework. The emerging political scenario, unequivocally ignited the North South Divide. Southern states that have effectively controlled population growth would see a relative decline in parliamentary influence. As part of damage management, the NDA government discreetly revealed that all states will have their number of Lok Sabha Seats increase by half after delimitation and no state will lose its existing proportional strength in the House. However, critics argue against this too.  

The largest gainer is Uttar Pradesh (Expected increase from 80 to about 120 to 125 seats), Bihar (from 40 to around 60 to 62), and Maharashtra (from 48 to 72 to 75) seats. Thus, the northern region will be benefited with five major states with a projected combined share of the House rising from about 37% to 43% (Increase roughly by 367).

Kerala and Tamil Nadu are seen as losers in terms of parliamentary influence due to population-based restructuring. Telangana’s tally is estimated to increase from 17 to around 20-22 seats. Despite the number of seats in the five southern states rises to approximately 160-190, their collective share in the House may decline from the current 24 percent to around 20 percent. The Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha subtly and directly addressed these figures through its proposed structure for parliamentary expansion. Earlier, Telangana CM A Revanth Reddy has expressed concerns, since the model penalises development and rewards demographic expansion.

Delimitation has become a contentious issue in India, a truly ‘Great Nation’ through decades of trials, transformations, and achievements. Southern states, governed by non-NDA parties, fear a loss of political influence to the North. This raises concerns about potential strains on national unity. The exercise therefore, shall not be a process that deepens divisions.

This view is neither partisan nor impulsive, but is aligned with an inclusive and forward-looking vision articulated by experienced political leaders who have lived through the democratic process. Even Young Leaders like Rahul Gandhi have reflected a measured and progressive approach on this issue. TGCM Revanth Reddy and also BRS, have expressed genuine concerns on delimitation. Supporters of cooperative federalism, including me, are in agreement with these concerns.

While the principle of equitable representation is fundamental to democracy, the methodology adopted must reflect present day realities and must not penalise states that have demonstrated progress, discipline, and commitment to national development. Southern states, particularly Telangana, have shown strong performance across several parameters. In this context, reliance on outdated or static criteria places such states at a disadvantage.

Reliance on the 2011 Census for delimitation appears increasingly untenable in today’s dynamic socio-economic context. Over the past decade, significant demographic, economic, and developmental changes have taken place. Telangana, as a young and emerging state, has evolved rapidly and has made strong contributions to the Nation’s Gross State Domestic Product, while setting benchmarks in sectors such as information technology, infrastructure, and social welfare, along with notable progress in population control.

It is reasonable that states contributing strongly to national growth are accorded not just equal representation but, where appropriate, some recognition of their contributions. In this context, the ‘Hybrid Model’ proposed by Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy seeks to balance population-based representation with performance-based considerations. It reflects the spirit of cooperative federalism and responsible governance.

It offers a pragmatic path forward that neither undermines the democratic principle of representation nor discourages states from pursuing progressive policies. The entire exercise must be handled with great care so that no perception of a North South divide is allowed to deepen. India’s strength lies in its unity amidst diversity. Any policy, however well intentioned, must be framed and communicated in a manner that strengthens national cohesion rather than widening regional disparities.

The discourse must remain anchored in mutual respect, shared aspirations, and the larger goal of national progress. Delimitation refers to the process of fixing the boundaries of territorial constituencies for the Lok Sabha. The spirit of democracy requires a clear and autonomous exercise that ensures each citizen’s vote carries roughly equal weight, in line with the constitutional principle of ‘One Person, One Vote, One Value.’

This can be achieved through a method of periodically adjusting constituency boundaries to reflect population changes, based on a broadly accepted democratic process and with due regard to norms of population control, which remain equally important. When any government, including the present NDA government, undertakes delimitation, the primary objective must be to reduce existing disparities on multiple counts.

If, instead, the exercise creates new imbalances, it would defeat its purpose and weaken the spirit of the electoral process. Any perception of partisan advantage must be set aside. The initial allocation of Lok Sabha seats was based on population, with the aim of ensuring uniform representation. However, this approach soon faced practical challenges due to rapid population growth and shifting boundaries. The first general elections were conducted using population estimates from the 1951 Census, and the first Lok Sabha from 1952 to 1957 had 489 elected seats, with a total strength of 499.

This number remained largely unchanged until the next major delimitation exercise in 1963. The total seats were increased to 522 in 1963 following the reorganisation of states, and later to 543 in 1973. The number was subsequently frozen at 543 based on the 1971 Census. The first Delimitation Commission was established in 1952, followed by commissions in 1963, 1973, and 2002. The Delimitation Commission was empowered to divide states into territorial constituencies. Smaller states and Union Territories were generally assured of at least one seat.

Thus, the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states was rooted in the constitutional requirement that the ratio between the number of seats and a state’s population should, as far as practicable, remain uniform across the country. However, the initial framework soon required adjustment. The Second Constitutional Amendment in 1952 removed the upper limit on constituency population to allow greater flexibility as the population increased.

The number of seats was later frozen on the basis of the 1971 Census through the Forty Second Amendment in 1976, with the objective of encouraging population control in states with higher growth rates. In principle, readjustments were to take place after every Census. However, the state wise allocation of seats has remained frozen at the 1971 level since 1976, and this freeze has been extended until 2026. The existing distribution was expected to be reviewed only after the Census conducted post 2026. In this context, the question arises as to why such an exercise is being advanced at this stage. Is it for partisan gain?