'Delimitation Can't Be Challenged Once It Is Approved'

'The Supreme Court stated that once the delimitation plan is approved by Parliament and receives assent of the President, it cannot be undone. Nor can it be modified.'

Delimitation has suddenly emerged as one of the most contentious issues in Indian politics, triggering a fresh debate on representation, federal balance, and the future of Indian democracy.

At its core, delimitation refers to the process of redrawing the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on population changes, a Constitutional exercise meant to ensure equal representation under the principle of 'one person, one vote, one value'.

With the Union government indicating a possible expansion of Lok Sabha seats from 543 to around 850 after the next Census, questions are being raised about its political implications -- particularly concerns from the southern states about a potential loss of influence.

Alongside delimitation, the issue of women's reservation has also been brought into the spotlight.

The Women's Reservation Bill, which seeks to reserve one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies for women, has been positioned as a landmark step toward gender equality in political representation.

To unpack the complexities, Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff spoke to Sanjeer Alam, associate professor, Centre for Study of Developing Societies, on what delimitation means, why it matters, and the debates shaping it today.

Do you agree with the Opposition view that South India will suffer post delimitation of Lok Sabha seats and they will be put at a disadvantage forever?

The provision in the Constitution of India is that the seat allocation to states will be based on their relative share of population. And if population continues to be the basis then obviously the southern states will suffer in terms of number of Lok Sabha seats as their population share over the past five decades has come down, whereas that of the northern states has increased.

Quite obviously then, both the numerical and relative strength of the southern states in the Lok Sabha will get diluted significantly.

Of course, an increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats (to 850) will add a few seats to the kitty of the southern states, but it will not address the apparent regional imbalance in representation.

The government though is stating that it will distribute the additional seats in such a manner that the proportion will be the same post delimitation but nowhere has the government put down in writing this claim.

But if this is how seats are going to be distributed, then the original idea of delimitation or the Constitutional logic of representation will be gravely undermined.

Can you explain how the 50 percent increase of seats will work out?

The government has made a statement that it will increase the parliamentary seats from 543 to 850 seats. This means it is 1.5 times of the existing seats or an increase of 50%. So when it comes to allocation of seats to (large) states, it might be done as follows.

Let us say Kerala has a total of 20 Lok Sabha seats, and if we apply the 50% increase formula it will have 30 seats. And if a state has 80 Lok Sabha seats it will become 120.

But this goes against the fundamental underpinning principle of the delimitation exercise which is that fair representation is ensured when the value of each citizen's vote is equal -- one person, one vote, one value.

This can happen only if electoral constituencies have an equal size of population. It is this imagination of delimitation that our Constitution embraced.

If now you want to add just 50 percent of seats to the existing number of seats that the states have, the relevance of delimitation is almost over. In essence, this exercise is no different from the last (fourth) delimitation.

Can you tell us the significance of 1 person 1 vote and 1 value? What does it mean?

This is the principle of democratic equality value. One person, one vote, one value is a core democratic principle ensuring every citizen has an equal say, with each vote carrying identical weight regardless of a voter's wealth, status, or identity.

Its significance lies in promoting political equality, as I mentioned earlier, ensuring fair representation. This is the idea of democracy. This is the principle our Constitution has embraced in Article 81 (2).

(Article 81(2) of the Indian Constitution mandates that the Lok Sabha (House of the People) be structured based on population, ensuring that the ratio of seats to population is, as far as practicable, consistent across all states.)

Following this, Article 82 states the readjustment of Lok Sabha seat allocations to states and the division of territorial constituencies after every Census.

The reason being the changes in the size of population of administrative as well as political units over time due to a variety of demographic factors -- fertility, mortality and migration. These changes are reflected in the Census that takes place once in every 10 years. And hence, the link between Census and delimitation.

The BJP says in terms of percentage South India's parliamentary seats are not going to reduce post delimitation. How far is it true?

How are they allocating? We don't know. It is not mentioned in the bill as they are only saying that the additional number of seats will be allocated proportionately.

Existing 543 parliamentary seats will now be 850 as a result of the proposed increase of 50 percent. If the existing number of seats will be increased by 50%, the existing ratio (post third delimitation that was completed in 1974) will remain unaltered. But it is so far unclear if that will be done because there is no mention of the same in the bill.

Secondly, it is the power of the Delimitation Commission to fix the methodology of delimitation.

Prior to delimitation, you have a Delimitation Act passed by Parliament which empowers the Delimitation Commission to carry out the delimitation exercise in accordance with legal/constitutional provisions. This is probably why an increase of 50% in the existing number of seats held by states is not explicitly mentioned.

In an ideal situation what should the government have done to be transparent?

To link women's reservation with delimitation is absolutely unnecessary.

If the government wanted to do this sincerely it could have done so in the 2024 general elections with 543 seats. It could have allocated 1/3rd of seats to women as reservation in the 2024 general elections but didn't do so at that point of time.

And if the new delimitation would have happened after the 2027 population Census, it could have increased the number of seats and given 1/3rd seats to women post the delimitation exercise.

Please note that the criteria for reservation of seats for women are not the same as for SC/STs. In the latter's case reservation of seats has to be proportional to their share in total population, and that constituencies have to be reserved for them where their concentration is high. But this is not a requirement for reserving a constituency for women.

In other words, women's reservation has got nothing to do with delimitation and population Census.

So, either the government had postponed the reallocation of seats for another 20-30 years, which is basically the demand of the southern states, by when the population growth of North India too would have stabilised, or it could have devised an agreeable formula with the consultation of the states.

The population increase in the last 30 years has been huge, making delimitation a necessity for now. You cannot postpone the delimitation exercise till 2047.

Theoretically it sounds right. The smaller the size of a constituency, the greater is accessibility of the representative to electors. Therefore, you need to increase the size of Parliament with increasing population.

But practically, there is no importance to such theory as representatives are hardly inclined to meet the voters regularly. Earlier Article 81 (1) (b) (external link

Today there are some constituencies in India which has one MP for a population of 25 lakh. But it does not mean that voters had greater access to their representatives when the size of the constituency was relatively small.

Therefore, I said theoretically it sounds good but empirically there is no evidence that the smaller the size of constituency better is the performance of the representative.

Opposition leaders allege that the Bharatiya Janata Party has, with the delimitation exercise, divided India smartly into areas where they have ensured they will win permanently by carving out 543 constituencies to 850 where their voter base is high.

Allegations are allegations and you can't do anything about them. These allegations may contain some element of truth because politicians think that by design they will win.

But voters are dynamic. It would be foolhardy to assume that some voters will always be loyal to a specific party and vote for the same in every future election.

This was proved in the 2024 elections. Just compare how many seats the BJP won in 2019 (62) in Uttar Pradesh and how many they won in 2024 (33). The voter is not captive of any one political party.

No matter how you carve out constituencies, it is ultimately the people who decide the fate of political parties.

Is delimitation harmful for India?

Delimitation has a purpose. It has to happen to ensure fair representation. It is all the more necessary in a federal form of representation. Similar to other federal countries such as the USA, it is a necessary exercise in India. Without this, representation will assume different meanings.

The Congress party never carried out delimitation since 1977 with the result the number of parliamentary seats has been constant at 543 for nearly 50 years.

In 2001 when the moratorium on delimitation ended, the NDA was in power. When it initiated the process to carry out the delimitation exercise, it confronted the challenge of redistribution of seats.

The political class of the southern states made a lot of hue and cry. (Prime Minister Atal Bihari) Vajpayeeji felt the gravity of the situation and did not push it. Eventually, only a partial delimitation was carried out whereby only constituency boundaries were readjusted within the states.

In other contexts, people have recognised how ruling parties try to take advantage of redrawing constituencies boundaries. The USA is particularly known for it where delimitation manipulation is known as 'gerrymandering'.

But then, the assumption that voters always vote in the same pattern is fallacious. People's priorities change over time and so does their choice. The fixed notion of voter's choice is absolutely nonsensical. .

Why did Congress not carry out delimitation in 2011 when the population Census results came out?

The fourth Delimitation Commission had finished the delimitation exercise in 2008. It was implemented in the 2009 general elections to the Lok Sabha. Once again, a moratorium was put on delimitation until 2026.

Was clubbing women's reservation with the delimitation of seats necessary?

No, it was not necessary. There is a perception that the ruling party has brought this in for political gains as elections in many states are under way.

In politics, it is a fair game. However, it can't be definitely said that this move will benefit. No one single factor determines electoral outcomes.

Why did the Opposition support the women's reservation bill in 2023 and not now?

They supported it then because the chronology of events was different in 2023.

The first step was to undertake a population Census after which delimitation would be done. Following this, women's reservation would be implemented.

The Opposition's main claim is that when the Modi government brought in the women's reservation bill in 2023, there was political consensus. And that it could have put it in effect in the 2024 general elections. But it didn't do so then.

This makes them believe that the government is playing politics with women's reservation.

Can delimitation be challenged in court?

As far as enactment of laws with regard to delimitation is concerned, it comes under judicial review. However, once the final delimitation plan is approved by Parliament, it cannot be challenged in court.

If citizens are allowed to contest the delimitation plan, no delimitation will ever be completed. So, there is judicial immunity.

Has anyone tried to challenge the delimitation law?

Yes, in the past people have tried to challenge it but the Supreme Court of India stated that once the delimitation plan is approved by Parliament and receives assent of the President, it cannot be undone. Nor can it be modified.