A CASE FOR A FAIR SEAT ALLOCATION

THE CONTEXT:

Delimitation, the process of redrawing boundaries and readjusting the number of seats in legislative bodies based on population data, is a constitutional mandate under Articles 81 and 82. With the freeze on Lok Sabha seat allocation set to expire in 2026, the impending delimitation exercise has sparked debates over its implications for federalism, representation, and regional equity.

The last delimitation exercise that altered state-wise Lok Sabha seat composition was conducted based on the 1971 Census. The 42nd Amendment (1976) froze seat allocation until 2000 to encourage population control measures. This freeze was extended to 2026 by the 84th Amendment (2001). India’s population has grown from 54.79 crore in 1971 to an estimated 141 crore in 2025. However, this growth has been uneven across regions, with northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar witnessing exponential increases compared to southern states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

Constitutional Mandates

• • • Article 81(2)(a): Ensures proportional representation by mandating that the ratio between seats and population remains uniform across states.
    • Article 82: Requires readjustment of parliamentary seats after every decennial Census.
    • Federal Principles: Article 1 defines India as a “Union of States,” emphasizing equitable representation for all regions.

• • • Democratic Representation: The principle of “one citizen-one vote-one value” underpins India’s democratic ethos. Delimitation aims to ensure equal weightage for votes across constituencies.

 

CURRENT SCENARIO: POPULATION DISPARITIES

1. Northern States
   • • Uttar Pradesh’s population has grown from 8.38 crore (1971) to 24.1 crore (2025), potentially increasing its Lok Sabha seats from 80 to over 240 if proportional representation is applied.
     • Bihar’s population has risen from 4.21 crore (1971) to 13.1 crore (2025), warranting a significant increase in seats.
2. Southern States
   • • Kerala’s population grew by only 68% over the same period (2.14 crore to 3.6 crore), meaning its seat share would remain relatively static.
     • Tamil Nadu and Karnataka face similar scenarios, despite contributing significantly to GDP and tax revenues.
3. Implications
   • • Proportional seat allocation would reward high-population-growth states while penalizing those that successfully implemented family planning policies.
     • This could exacerbate the North-South divide in political influence and fiscal allocations.

 

THE CHALLENGES:

1. Federal Imbalance: Threat to Cooperative Federalism

Constitutional Tension:

• • • Article 81(2)(a) mandates uniform population-to-seat ratios, but post-2026 delimitation risks skewing power toward northern states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh’s seats could surge from 80 to 240). Southern states like Kerala (68% population growth since 1971) argue this violates Article 1 (“Union of States”), which implies equitable federal bargaining power.
    • The U.S. Senate’s equal state representation (2 seats/state) balances the House’s population-based model. India lacks such a counterweight, as the Rajya Sabha’s composition remains population linked.

Economic-Representation Paradox:

• • • Southern states contribute 35% of India’s GDP but face reduced political clout. Tamil Nadu (9.4% GST contribution) and Karnataka (8.3%) may lose influence, while Uttar Pradesh (4.4% GST) gains seats. This misalignment echoes the 15th Finance Commission’s shift to 2011 Census data, which reduced southern states’ fund shares despite their fiscal discipline.

1. 2. Rewarding Poor Governance: Demographic Penalty

 

Population Policy Failure:

• • • Bihar’s fertility rate (2.9) and Uttar Pradesh’s (2.7) exceed the national average (2.0), yet they stand to gain 70 and 160 seats, respectively. Conversely, Kerala (fertility rate: 1.6) faces stagnation. This contradicts the 42nd Amendment’s intent to incentivize population control.

Accountability Crisis:

• • • NITI Aayog’s Health Index (2024): Bihar and UP rank lowest in health infrastructure, yet their political leverage grows. This creates a perverse incentive against investing in human development.

3. Economic Contributions vs. Representation: Fiscal Federalism at Risk

 

Taxation Without Proportional Representation:

• • • Tamil Nadu receives ₹0.29 for every ₹1 contributed to central taxes, while Uttar Pradesh receives ₹1.79 (15th Finance Commission data). Post-delimitation, this disparity could widen, undermining cooperative federalism.

• • • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court emphasized federalism as part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. A lopsided Lok Sabha could destabilize this equilibrium.

4. Infrastructure Limitations: Spatial and Functional Constraints

Parliamentary Capacity:

• • • The new Parliament building accommodates 888 MPs, but projections suggest a post-delimitation Lok Sabha of 1,875 seats if the 1971 population ratio is maintained. Even a moderate expansion to 800 seats strains infrastructure, as seen in the Central Vista Redevelopment Report (2023).

Technological Gap:

• • • Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Data: India’s Parliament lags in digital tools for remote voting or committee coordination, critical for managing a larger house.

5. Constitutional and Ethical Dilemmas

 

Equity vs. Equality:

• • • Ambedkar’s Warning (Constituent Assembly Debates): He cautioned against majoritarian dominance in a diverse federation. Pure population-based delimitation risks marginalizing regional aspirations, as seen in Sri Lanka’s Tamil majority areas post-1987 Accord.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • • Constitutional Reforms: Amend Article 81to include Human Development Index (HDI), tax contributions, and demographic performance as criteria for seat allocation. This aligns with the Subramanian Committee’s (2015) call for “performance-based federalism.” The 15th Finance Commission shifted to 2011 Census data for fiscal devolution, reducing southern states’ fund shares despite their fiscal discipline. A similar equity-driven approach in delimitation would balance political and economic federalism.
    • Federal Bargain Model: Hybrid Allocation Formula: Use Kerala’s 68% population growth since 1971 as a baseline. All states receive a 68% step-up in seats, capping Uttar Pradesh at 134 seats (vs. 240 under pure population) and Kerala at 34 (vs. 36). The European Union’s “degressive proportionality”balances representation for smaller states without diluting larger states’ influence.
    • State Reorganization Commission 2.0: Split Uttar Pradeshinto Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, and Awadh, mirroring the 2000 bifurcation of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and UP. It would reduce administrative bottlenecks and align with the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations on state size. Chhattisgarh (carved from Madhya Pradesh in 2000) improved its HDI from 0.496 to 0.664 by 2023, demonstrating the efficacy of smaller states.
    • Rajya Sabha Reforms: Counterbalancing Lok Sabha: On lines of U.S. Senate Model,Grant equal representation (e.g., 3 seats/state) in the Rajya Sabha, transforming it into a true federal chamber. It aligns with Article 1 (“Union of States”) and R. Ambedkar’s vision in the Constituent Assembly debates (1949) to prevent “tyranny of the majority.”
    • Digital Parliament Infrastructure: Using German Bundestag Model, Introducing overhang seatsfor virtual MPs during sessions, allowing a 1,500-member Lok Sabha without infrastructure strain. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (2024) reports that 62% of parliaments use hybrid systems post-pandemic, ensuring continuity.
    • Fiscal-Representation Linkage: Link 30% of central grants to HDI progress, gender parity, and environmental sustainability. The 14th Finance Commissionincreased states’ tax share to 42%, rewarding fiscal responsibility. Kerala, with 96% literacy and 4 years life expectancy, would receive additional grants, offsetting its static seat share.

 

THE CONCLUSION: India’s delimitation debate must transcend arithmetic to embody cooperative federalism—rewarding Kerala’s 68% population control success as a national benchmark while recalibrating representation through Rajya Sabha reforms and HDI-linked seats. By harmonizing demographic realities with constitutional morality, India can pioneer a Global South model where equitable governance, not mere numbers, defines democracy’s soul, ensuring 2047’s India is both demographically vibrant and federally just.

 

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION: How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer. 2020

 

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION: Examine the federal challenges posed by the unequal population growth of Indian States in the context of parliamentary representation.

 

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-case-for-a-fair-seat-allocation/article69422790.ece

 

Spread the Word