Delimitation, enshrined in Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution of India, has stirred unprecedented passions that have taken shape in both serious and ludicrous ways. The serious ones stem from what the Constitution provides and its possible implications if implemented as provided. The ludicrous ones include calls by some who are asking people to ‘multiply’ rapidly to deal with the fear of being outnumbered.
As passions run high, there is a need to look at the issues dispassionately. Ironically, those who had hitherto accused the government of flouting constitutional principles, now want that the government does not act in accordance with the Constitution. Are the ‘protectors of the Constitution’ chasing their tail in asking for the ‘freezing’ or ‘postponing’ the delimitation exercise for sound reasons?
The Constitution provides that “upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted”. A similar provision exists for the Vidhan Sabhas. Through the 42nd and subsequent amendments, this ‘readjustment’ was deferred till 2026. The Census after that will be the basis of any future delimitation, which has also caused much apprehension in the southern States. There is little evidence to justify their apprehensions but there is no reason to dismiss their fear.
There is heated debate, justifiably so, on the principle of population proportionality and federalism and whether any principle enshrined in the Constitution should be used to undermine the other. It is clear that a mathematical approach to delimitation and allocation of seats based on population alone will benefit States where population growth has been faster than the rest.
Data from the past and trends
The data published by the Election Commission of India show that in the first general election in 1951-52 there were 489 Lok Sabha seats; 494 in 1957, and 520 in 1967 (as per the Delimitation Commission’s Report of March 21, 1963 based on the 1961 Census). Thirty-one seats were added and five reduced from the previous election. Andhra Pradesh went down from 43 to 41, Madras, 41 to 39, and Uttar Pradesh, 86 to 85. Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Mysore, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh made gains. Besides, seats were added in new States such as Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry.
In the 1971 Lok Sabha election, two seats were reduced in Himachal Pradesh bringing the total to 518. In the 1977 election, 24 seats were added, taking the number to 542. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka (erstwhile Mysore), Orissa, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Haryana made gains, and new States such as Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Mizoram got additional seats. In 2004, Daman and Diu was allotted a separate seat to take the total to 543 — which is the current strength of the Lok Sabha based on the 1971 Census.
What needs to be considered
An analysis of these trends suggests that any debate on delimitation must consider three issues: the principle of population as the basis of allocation of seats; the impact of public policy on the population criterion, and the ‘representative’ hue of those who are elected.
The increase in the number of seats between 1951 and 2004, determined by the Delimitation Commissions, contains no formula for the ideal population that a Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabhas member should represent. If the population is divided by the number of Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabhas seats, the average goes up from 7.32 lakh per seat in 1951 to about 8.70 lakh in 1967, and 10.10 lakh in 1977. In 2024, this is about 27 lakh per Lok Sabha seat. Similarly, the number of Vidhan Sabha seats have increased from 3,283 in 1951-52 to 4,123 in 2024, tripling the average population that a Vidhan Sabhas member represents. Going by the nearly 98 crore electors in the 2024 general election election, each Member of Parliament on an average represented about 18 lakh electors; Lakshadweep had 57,760 electors and Malkajgiri 29.5 lakh.
This shows that while population was chosen as the primary principle of representation, it has not been followed without accommodating other concerns such as geographical contiguity and political boundaries. The Census-based population criterion was the only basis that had no qualifications attached, unlike in the past where voting rights were based on religion and educational background. It was the simplest criterion to ensure universal franchise and one vote, one value. Is the criterion so sacred that it does not permit any adjustment based on current circumstances to avoid fissures in our polity, creating distortions in the representative federal character of the Parliament, and the feeling of regional injustice? After all, the Finance Commission, set up every five years, keeps modifying its criteria for financial allocation and devolution based on changing reality, regional aspirations and national priorities.
The question that also needs to be debated is this: “what does it mean to ‘represent’ a constituency”? The Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabhas are essentially law-making bodies and the representative weight of the elected person does not change because of the number of people in the constituency. Also, the constituency size does not influence the other functions that elected representatives perform — namely asking questions or being a part of various House committees. There are no surveys to show that a smaller constituency is better represented than a larger one. For example, let us evaluate how the people of the tenth parliament constituency created in Haryana in 1977, or the Daman and Diu constituency created in 2004 benefited because of having a Member of Parliament represent them in the Lok Sabha? Or whether in Haryana, Narnaul Assembly segment with 1.6 lakh voters is better served by its elected representative than Badshahpur with 5.2 lakh electors. In the first-past-the-post system, numerical strength of the constituency is immaterial to ‘representativeness’. Moreover, how many times do citizens need the Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha representative to deal with day-to-day problems? Strengthening the third tier of elected bodies may be more meaningful for democracy, and devolution of authority to local bodies, a more effective measure of improving governance than clamouring for more seats adhering to the ‘fetish’ of population-based representation in elected Houses.
A primary criterion that needs moderation
The importance of population as the primary criterion needs moderation because the population control policy was promoted by the central government. There may not be another parallel policy, the outcome of which is used to the detriment of the performer. Perhaps, there is a need to use a deflator that can moderate the benefit that States might derive on account of higher population. As real GDP growth is determined by adjusting nominal growth for inflation, we need to think of a divisor that will neutralise the unintended gain due to population growth. For example, if we calculate the number of seats that the Lok Sabha should have on the basis of the 10.10 lakh average for the 1977 election of 543 seats, we might get about 1,440 seats as per the estimated population of 2024. But if this number is divided by the national total fertility rate (TFR, the single significant factor that is proportional to population growth) for 2024, this might reduce to about 680 seats. Since State-level TFR data is available, this can be applied to every State for moderating its population growth figures. Experts may suggest a more sophisticated formula.
A Parliament that can debate constitutional amendments aimed merely to achieve managerial efficiency in conducting elections, can certainly debate ways in which the structural political imbalance inherent in the population-based delimitation of constituencies can be managed.
Ashok Lavasa is a former Election Commissioner and Union Finance Secretary of India
Published – April 11, 2025 12:16 am IST