The Looming Crisis of Delimitation: Why the Centre and Judiciary Must Address Southern States’ Fears
The ongoing debate surrounding the delimitation exercise in India has revealed deep-seated anxieties among southern states, which fear a loss of political representation due to their successful implementation of population control measures. With the potential expansion of Lok Sabha seats from 543 to 846, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are poised to gain significant parliamentary power at the cost of southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana.
This shift raises serious concerns about federalism, governance equity, and economic contributions, which the Centre and the judiciary must urgently address. The fear of southern states is not just political posturing but a rational concern rooted in fundamental democratic principles. Instead of penalizing states for effective governance, India must explore alternative models of representation to ensure that national policymaking remains balanced and just.
Delimitation: A Threat to Federalism?
The southern states’ opposition to delimitation is based on a simple yet compelling argument: why should states that controlled their population be punished, while those that failed be rewarded with greater representation? The current freeze on delimitation, based on the 1971 Census, was designed to prevent precisely this imbalance. However, lifting that freeze now, without considering the economic and developmental contributions of different states, could dilute the political influence of progressive and well-governed regions.
Furthermore, delimitation based solely on population tilts political power towards the Hindi-speaking belt, raising questions about regional autonomy. With states like Uttar Pradesh expected to gain up to 143 seats in Parliament, the sheer numbers would allow northern states to dominate policymaking, taxation, and resource allocation in ways that might not be beneficial for the entire country.
For instance, the southern states contribute over 30% of India’s GDP and rank high on human development indicators (HDI). However, with a shrinking share in Parliament, they could find themselves unable to push policies that align with their economic and social priorities.
Why the Judiciary Must Intervene
The Supreme Court of India has previously asserted that it has the authority to review the decisions of the Delimitation Commission if they violate constitutional principles. Given the federal and constitutional ramifications of this exercise, the judiciary must step in to ensure that the principle of democratic fairness is upheld.
Courts have historically played a role in upholding equity in representation, and this is another instance where their intervention is crucial. If delimitation disproportionately weakens some states, it could trigger legal challenges that question the very structure of India’s federalism. Judicial oversight is necessary to ensure that any redrawing of political boundaries is not arbitrary but rather based on fair and just principles.
Alternative Models to Ensure Fair Representation
Instead of basing political representation solely on population growth, India must adopt a more nuanced approach that reflects the country’s diverse governance needs. Here are some potential alternatives:
Decentralization of Power
One of the most effective solutions to the delimitation dilemma is reducing the excessive centralization of power in the Union government. If states had more control over taxation, policy decisions, and governance, the need for increased representation in Parliament would be less critical.
More fiscal autonomy, where states retain a higher share of their tax revenues, would reduce dependence on the Centre. Empowering regional councils and strengthening governance at a state and district level can ensure better representation for local issues without requiring a disproportionate number of MPs.
Capping Maximum Representation for Any One State
To prevent political domination by highly populous states, a cap could be introduced on the maximum number of Lok Sabha seats any state can have. For instance, Uttar Pradesh, which is expected to see its seats rise to 143, could be capped at a reasonable number like 100. This would ensure that no single state has excessive control over national policy decisions.
Weighted Representation Instead of Direct Representation
Instead of increasing the number of MPs for states with large populations, a weighted vote system could be introduced. MPs from highly populated states could have more voting power, while states with lower populations retain their existing representation. This would maintain the balance of parliamentary influence while ensuring that less populous states do not lose their voice.
A Stronger Role for the Rajya Sabha
India could empower the Rajya Sabha to act as a counterbalance to Lok Sabha by ensuring that all states have equal representation in the Rajya Sabha, regardless of population size. Giving the Rajya Sabha more powers in financial and legislative matters would ensure that populous states do not have an unfair advantage in shaping national policies.
This is similar to the U.S. Senate model, where each state, regardless of size, has equal representation in one house of the legislature.
A New Formula Beyond Population
Instead of solely using population as the basis for seat allocation, India could develop a more holistic formula that includes economic contributions, human development indicators such as education and healthcare, and governance performance. This approach would ensure that states contributing more to national progress are adequately represented, rather than simply rewarding higher population growth.
Limiting the Role of Lok Sabha in Some Matters
To prevent states with larger populations from dictating national policy, some crucial financial and governance decisions could require state-wise consensus rather than a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. This would preserve the federal balance by ensuring that no single region can push through policies against the interests of others.
Conclusion: A Time for Thoughtful Reforms, Not Unfair Redistribution
India is at a critical juncture where the delimitation exercise could either strengthen or weaken its federal structure. While the government’s argument that parliamentary representation must reflect demographic realities is valid, it cannot be done in a way that penalizes states for effective governance.
The fears of southern states are not unfounded—they reflect a real danger of political imbalance that could have long-term consequences. The Centre and the judiciary must heed these concerns and adopt alternative models that preserve fairness, federalism, and economic equity.
A one-size-fits-all approach to delimitation is not the answer. Instead, India must evolve its representation system to reflect not just population growth, but the broader realities of governance, economic contributions, and regional equity. Only then can we ensure that democracy remains just, balanced, and truly representative of all regions.
