Lopsided Shift?

The upcoming delimitation exercise in India is set to be one of the most consequential political restructurings in the country’s history. While ostensibly a routine redrawing of parliamentary and assembly constituencies to reflect demographic changes, its deeper implications could profoundly alter India’s federal balance and reshape the nature of political representation. As discussions gain momentum, the issue is being framed in two contrasting narratives: one, as a long-overdue measure to ensure fair representation, and the other, as a calculated political manoeuvre by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to consolidate its dominance at the cost of states that have successfully managed population growth.

Fundamentally, delimitation is meant to ensure that electoral representation remains proportional to population distribution, a principle enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Articles 82 and 170 provide the framework for this exercise, mandating the readjustment of parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on Census data. However, political controversies surrounding the process are far from new. Since Independence, India has undertaken four delimitation exercises, the last full-scale one being in 1973. In 1976, the Indira Gandhi government froze the reallocation of parliamentary seats through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which was extended later in the early 2000s by the Vajpayee’s NDA government until 2026. This move was intended to prevent states with lower population growth, primarily in South India, from being penalised for their successful implementation of family planning policies.

With the 2026 deadline approaching, the resumption of delimitation raises significant concerns. The prospect of a reapportionment based on updated population figures suggests a substantial shift in political weight toward the northern heartland states, where population growth rates remain high. Projections indicate that Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan stand to gain at least 31 new seats, while southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh could collectively lose as many as 26. This geographical reallocation would intensify the already stark disparities in parliamentary influence, with the North wielding an even greater share of legislative power.

The political ramifications of this shift are profound. For the BJP, whose electoral stronghold lies in the Hindi heartland, an increase in seats in these states would reinforce its dominance and reduce its reliance on coalition partners. This is particularly significant in states like Maharashtra and Bihar, where the party has traditionally depended on alliances with regional players. By securing more parliamentary seats in states where it already enjoys a robust voter base, the BJP could diminish the bargaining power of allies and shift Indian politics toward a more centralised, majoritarian model.

Southern states, meanwhile, are drawing a red line. Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister MK Stalin has vociferously opposed the exercise, framing it as an attack on the South’s political relevance. Similar apprehensions have been voiced by Karnataka’s Siddaramaiah, Telangana’s A Revanth Reddy, and Kerala’s Pinarayi Vijayan. They argue that reducing the South’s parliamentary presence would translate into diminished financial allocations from the central government, exacerbating economic and developmental disparities. Even BJP ally N Chandrababu Naidu has expressed reservations, hinting that states may be compelled to rethink their population policies to maintain their representation.

Adding to the complexity is the BJP’s strategic linkage of delimitation with the Women’s Reservation Bill. By making the implementation of women’s quotas contingent on a redrawing of constituencies, the BJP has framed delimitation not merely as an electoral restructuring but as a matter of gender justice. This dual approach places the opposition in a difficult position, forcing them to either accept delimitation or risk appearing obstructive to women’s political empowerment. In this way, the BJP has ensured that the exercise moves forward while deflecting criticism of its delay in enacting women’s reservation.

The question of fair representation is at the heart of the debate. The principle of ‘one person, one vote’ demands that each MP represents a comparable number of constituents. However, the freeze on delimitation since 1976 has led to stark imbalances. In Uttar Pradesh, an MP currently represents over 3.1 million people, while in Tamil Nadu, the number is closer to 1.98 million. This disparity undermines the democratic ideal of equal representation, effectively giving voters in some states more electoral weight than others. At the same time, a rigid population-based realignment without safeguards for historically disadvantaged regions could deepen regional discontent and weaken India’s federal structure.

Legal challenges to the delimitation draft are likely. Experts argue that relying on outdated Census data—given the delays in conducting the 2021 Census—could render the exercise constitutionally vulnerable. The opposition might seek judicial intervention, contending that any reallocation of seats based on incomplete or skewed demographic data violates constitutional principles. Additionally, public sentiment in states like Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, and the Northeast could significantly influence how this issue unfolds politically. If opposition parties can successfully mobilise resistance, they may force a reconsideration of the process or push for amendments that mitigate the impact on southern states.

Beyond numbers, delimitation also affects social representation. The allocation of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reserved seats is tied to demographic distribution, meaning that states with higher SC/ST populations—primarily in the North—could gain additional reserved constituencies. Conversely, states in the South may see a reduction in reserved seats, altering the political landscape for marginalised communities. Projections suggest a net increase of two SC-reserved seats and one ST-reserved seat nationwide but with at least 18 constituencies witnessing a change in their reservation status. Such shifts could provoke resistance from regional leaders and social justice advocates who view this as a dilution of affirmative action measures.

There is also the question of whether increasing the total number of seats in Parliament could provide a compromise solution. With the new Parliament building designed to accommodate at least 850 MPs, an expansion of Lok Sabha seats could mitigate some of the concerns raised by southern states. While Article 82 mandates the reallocation of seats, Article 81 imposes a cap of 550 MPs. Any expansion beyond the current 543 would therefore require a constitutional amendment. If Parliament were to expand, it could provide a more balanced approach—preserving representation for all states while ensuring proportional growth for population-heavy regions. The integrity of India’s foremost democratic institution must remain uncompromised.

At its core, the debate over delimitation is also a debate over India’s national identity and federal structure. While there has long been a tendency to privilege a North Indian imagination as the normative model of the Indian nation, the strength of states in Parliament should not be seen as an extension of this ideological struggle. The BJP, despite its historical discomfort with India’s pluralism and particularly with Dravidian identity politics, is unlikely to openly antagonise the South, especially as it seeks to expand its footprint in the region. The party’s internal dynamics may also pull it in contradictory directions, as it balances its Hindutva-driven consolidation in the North with its aspirations for broader national appeal.

Ultimately, the delimitation exercise must be approached with a spirit of democratic fairness and federal sensitivity. Ensuring proportional representation is vital, but so is preventing the disenfranchisement of regions that have historically contributed to India’s economic and social progress. The challenge lies in striking a balance—one that upholds the integrity of India’s democracy while accommodating the diversity of its federal structure. As the political battles over delimitation unfold, the outcome will not just determine seat allocations; it will shape the very nature of governance and representation in India for decades to come.

The writer is an author, political analyst and columnist. Views expressed are personal