Delimitation has occupied the centre stage of public discourse in recent times. The March 22 meeting of all leaders from the South of India, called by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin, has added spice to the debate. It is time to dissect the subject and understand the issues of concern to various sections of society.
Delimitation is an exercise to review the strength of popularly elected legislative chambers in our country such as the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. These bodies are constituted through direct election on the basis of the universal adult franchise by which every voter on the electoral rolls is given the opportunity to exercise their franchise. Members of these bodies are elected thus.
The Constitution of India envisages that the composition of these Houses must be based on the population ratio. When the population grows, the strength of these chambers must increase proportionately. We know that the census takes place every ten years, starting from 1951.
A census was scheduled to begin in 2021. However, it was not taken up, ostensibly due to COVID-19. Moreover, there is no word from the Union Government as to when it will be taken up, nor will a provision be made in the current budget. So, we have the 2011 census. Can we use this as the basis for determining the seat strength of these bodies?
Delimitation is a cumbersome exercise involving the remapping and redrawing of the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies on the basis of census by which an increase in the number of seats is effected. The limit on seats is lifted, which is why it is called delimitation.
It is a constitutional mandate; a Delimitation Commission is set up by an Act of Parliament. The Commission will study the pattern of population growth across various States and recommend the creation of new constituencies, scrapping of existing constituencies, and reviewing the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
A recent amendment to the Constitution made provision for the reservation of seats for women, which will take effect in the 2029 general elections. Therefore, the constituencies reserved for women need to be identified. What is the basis for such identification? Are there any constituencies where women are greater in numbers than men? And, what is the data to be relied on for this, since the 2021 census has not even started and nobody has any about its conclusion? Can we rely on the 2011 census? Is it relevant today?
The main point to observe here is that States with bigger populations will get more seats, and those with sluggish population growth will gain fewer or no seats. In other words, the states that have implemented the family planning programme effectively will lose, and those that have failed to implement the programme effectively will gain seats. Failure is rewarded, and success is punished!
The Government of India emphasised the need for smaller families with the motto of two or three and the reversed red triangle as the logo of the family planning programme. Incentives have been offered for those who undergo family planning surgeries after having two or three kids. Later, ‘one is fun’ became the unwritten ethic.
Why was this programme taken up in mission mode and found a place in the twenty-point formula in the 1970s? That is because the nation realised that we have unsustainable levels of population growth; without controlling the population, progress is not possible. While the nation realised this truth, people did not! Who said nation means people? In this endeavour, the southern States worked hard.
Is it not ironic that the states that effectively implement a key policy initiative of the government are penalised, while the states that have not been able to implement the said programme are rewarded with more seats? That is a sore point for some States, especially the Southern States, which have aggressively implemented the National Population Policy.
It is not that people queued up in the South for family planning surgeries. The State Governments explained the disadvantages of bigger families from the family welfare point of view and achieved considerable success in containing the population surge by convincing the public. As a result, human development indices show a better picture in the South in terms of healthcare, education, housing, sanitation, transportation and overall living standards of people on a comparative scale vis a vis UP, MP. Bihar, etc.
Should the voice of the South be muted in the legislative bodies, the temples of democracy, as a reward for containing population growth? This is the question the Southern States are asking. It is a valid question because the seat share of the South in the Lok Sabha has gradually declined after each delimitation exercise since 1963. Let us see the pattern.
So far, there have been four delimitation commissions since the Constitution came into effect. The first census since Independence was taken in 1951, and 489 Lok Sabha constituencies were carved out on the basis of the census. Of these 489, the southern region had a seat share of 25.35 per cent with 124 seats. These 124 seats were distributed thus: Coorg 1, Hyderabad 25, Madras 75, Mysore 11, and Travancore-Cochin 12.
By the time the second delimitation was taken up, States had been reorganised based on language in 1956. Following the second delimitation exercise undertaken in 1963, in the 1967 general elections to Parliament, the total seats in the Lok Sabha stood at 520. The Southern region had 127 seats, an increase of three in number, but the percentage of southern seat share in the House came down from 25.35 per cent in 1952 to 24.23 per cent.
In 1973, following the third delimitation based on the 1971 census, the total strength of the Lok Sabha stood at 545, and the 1977 general elections were held in 542 parliamentary constituencies. Southern States had 131 seats, but their seat share came down to 24%. This is not statistical jugglery; this is mathematical truth based on actual figures, which nobody can deny.
Why is it that every time there is an increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha, the southern seat share is declining? The exercise is based on population figures. Southern states are able to contain population growth through an effective implementation of the family planning programme, but they are penalised for their efficiency. It is a conclusion that cannot be avoided.
As a result, the southern voice in the portals of Parliament is weakened. This is an issue that is troubling the southern leaders. Delimitation cannot ignore census data based on which better-performing states are paying the price for their merit! The grievance of Stalin must be seen from this perspective.
It is possible that he has a political angle. However, if that political angle serves a public cause, it must be welcomed. But why is only Stalin taking the initiative? Historically, the Tamils have been at the forefront of the struggle for ascertaining the southern identity vis a vis the north. Other southern states are benefiting from the struggle led by the Tamils. Therefore, it is little wonder that Stalin is leading this agitation, too.
So, what is the way out of this imbroglio? First, is it necessary to have a larger legislative chamber merely because the population is growing? There should be a growth in the number of hospitals, hospital beds, doctors, nurses, schools, teachers, housing, sanitation, transportation, etc., to meet the needs of the growing population.
That will ensure better human development indices. Expansion of legislative chambers does not ensure public welfare in any way. On the contrary, it will put an additional burden on the exchequer in terms of pay, perks, accommodation, transportation and pension needs of legislators. What is the main job of a legislator?
First and foremost is legislation. Keeping the Executive under check is an ideal which does not happen in reality. So, what is the point of having more legislators? Is the existing strength not enough? Expansion of legislative bodies may benefit political parties as they can satisfy more party workers by giving tickets to the newly created constituencies. Yet, it does not help the people in any way whatsoever.
The BJP Government may be excited to fill the newly built Lok Sabha chamber, which has a seating capacity of more than 800 members. Do we carve out more constituencies because we have more seats in the legislative chamber?
There has been a freeze on Lok Sabha seats since 1977. The strength of Lok Sabha has not been increased from the 545-year limit set for the past fifty years. People have not suffered because of this cap in any way. The House of Representatives in the US Congress has a strength of 435, and it has remained frozen since 1913. The House of Commons in the British Parliament had 625 seats in 1950 and 650 seats today in 2025. On the contrary, we had 489 in 1952, 530 in 1967 and 545 in 1977. Has our Lok Sabha not worked well with 545 seats?
If we are so eager to increase the seats in the legislative chambers based on the increase in population, why are we not extending this reasoning to increase the number of seats in the reserved category for scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs in education and employment? Why is the cap at 50 per cent? True, it is a cap set by the court; there are many occasions when Parliament neutralised court judgments with legislation; the Shaw Bhano case is a good example.
Therefore, there is a good case for Parliament to freeze the seats, 530 for States and 20 for Union Territories, as mentioned in Article 81 of the Constitution. In fact, there is a good case to restructure the composition of the Rajya Sabha with five seats for each State uniformly for an effective functioning of the Parliament. Then, there would be no need for Delimitation Commissions and unnecessary heartburn among States. We need peace and stability on the political front to achieve all-round economic growth and social progress.
If the BJP is keen to leave a lasting mark on the Constitution, they should reform the electoral system, which has many imperfections. No citizen should be a legislative body member for more than two terms. We often notice an eight-time Member of Parliament and a five-time MLA, etc. How can the youngsters get a chance if a sitting member entrenches himself in a constituency for decades, leaving no opportunity for others? A citizen who loses twice should not be allowed to a third time. It will reduce electoral corruption. Nobody should contest from more than one constituency.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
