The Federal Dilemma of Delimitation

Introduction 

The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly recently passed a resolution urging the Centre to permanently freeze the number of Lok Sabha seats at the existing 543 and maintain the present State-wise distribution of those seats. The resolution also advocated preserving the current 2.2:1 ratio between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha seats and sought the implementation of one-third reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha from the 2029 election onwards, without linking it to any future census or delimitation. 

What is Delimitation? 

• Delimitation refers to the process of fixing the number of seats and boundaries of territorial constituencies in each State for the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies. 
• This process is carried out by a Delimitation Commission, which is constituted under an Act of Parliament. 
• The number of seats was last determined based on the 1971 Census, when the population stood at 54.8 crore, translating to an average of 10.1 lakh persons per constituency. 
• This number has remained frozen since the 42nd Amendment Act (till 2000) and was further extended by the 84th Amendment Act (till 2026), primarily to incentivise population control measures so that States with higher population growth do not gain additional seats. 
• Under the 2023rd  106th Constitutional Amendment, Parliament provided for one-third reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies, to be implemented through delimitation based on the census conducted after 2026 (expected in 2027). 

Constitutional Basis: 

• Article 81(2) of the Constitution provides that the ratio between the number of seats and the population of a State shall, as far as practicable, be the same for all States — reflecting the principle of "one citizen-one vote-one value." 
• Democracy, in its essence, means "rule by the people," and this majoritarian principle is meant to translate proportionally into legislative representation. 

The Issues Involved 

Representation Imbalance: 

• Population growth over the last five decades has been uneven, with States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan witnessing far greater increases than States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. 
• The current ratio between existing seats and projected 2026 population does not satisfy the "one person-one vote-one value" principle:  
  • Kerala has the highest value of vote (1.0, taken as base), while States like Uttar Pradesh (0.56) and Bihar (0.53) have proportionately undervalued votes under the present distribution. 
• Conversely, if seats were increased to 848 based on current population (as per Carnegie Endowment research by Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson), Southern States, smaller Northern States, and North Eastern States would see their proportional share of seats decline:  
  • Uttar Pradesh's share would rise from 14.7% to 16.9%, and Bihar's from 7.4% to 9.3%. 
  • Kerala's share would fall from 3.7% to 2.4%, and Tamil Nadu's from 7.2% to 5.8%. 
• This raises a direct tension with federal principles, as States that were more effective in controlling population growth would lose political significance relative to States with higher population growth. 

Current Proposal by the Centre: 

• The Union government introduced the Constitution 131st Amendment Bill in April 2026 to increase the maximum number of Lok Sabha seats from the existing 550 to 850. 
• The Home Minister gave an oral assurance in Parliament that the number of seats in each State/Union Territory would be increased by 50% on a pro-rata basis. 
• This Bill was defeated in the Lok Sabha; however, expectations remain that the government may reintroduce it in the near future with explicit statutory provisions for a uniform 50% increase across all States/Union Territories. 

The Larger Implications 

Arguments in Favour of a 50% Pro-Rata Increase: 

1. It would not alter the current proportion of representation of various States/Union Territories in the Lok Sabha. 

2. It would enable seamless implementation of one-third reservation for women, with an additional 272 seats reserved for women out of an enlarged House of around 816 seats. 

Challenges with the Proposed Increase: 

• Skewed Lok Sabha–Rajya Sabha ratio: The current strength of the Rajya Sabha is 245, resulting in a ratio of 2.2:1 with the Lok Sabha. A 50% increase in Lok Sabha seats without a corresponding change in the Rajya Sabha would skew this ratio to 3.3:1, potentially diminishing the Rajya Sabha's role as an effective check and balance on the Lower House. 
• Limited sitting days: As the Lok Sabha sits for only around 60 days a year, an increased strength would leave little meaningful time for each MP to raise issues, reducing the House's function to mere numerical representation rather than substantive deliberation. 
• Risk in Joint Sittings: Under the constitutional mechanism for Joint Sitting (used only thrice since Independence) to resolve deadlocks between the two Houses, an enlarged Lok Sabha strength increases the risk of Bills being pushed through such sittings, again undermining the Rajya Sabha's checking function. 
• Increased fiscal cost: A larger House would raise costs to the exchequer, including additional allocation under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). 

Harmonious Reconciliation 

• The core tension lies between the democratic principle (proportional representation based on population) and the federal principle (protecting the political significance of smaller/less populous States), which appear to be at loggerheads under the current delimitation framework. 
• These principles can be harmoniously reconciled by giving equal importance to both:  
  • The number of MPs in the Lok Sabha may be frozen at the present 543 seats, ensuring no disruption to existing State-wise representation and upholding the federal principle. 
  • One-third reservation for women can be implemented within the existing 543 seats itself, rather than through an enlarged House. 
  • The number of MLAs in each State may instead be increased in line with current population, to separately address the democratic representational requirement without disturbing the Lok Sabha's federal balance. 

Conclusion 

The debate over delimitation reflects a fundamental tension between the democratic principle of "one person-one vote-one value" and the federal principle of protecting the political significance of all States regardless of population growth. While the Centre's proposal for a pro-rata 50% increase in Lok Sabha seats preserves existing proportional representation, it risks disturbing the balance between the two Houses of Parliament and reducing the Lok Sabha's deliberative function. A reconciliatory approach — freezing Lok Sabha seats while enhancing representation through Assembly seats — may offer a more constitutionally balanced path forward.