Delimitation after Census 2027 and its implications for Indian federalism

Delimitation is the process of redrawing electoral boundaries and reallocating seats in legislatures based on population changes.

Mandated by the Constitution of India after every Census.

Conducted by an independent Delimitation Commission.

Inter-State allocation of Lok Sabha seats has been frozen since 1976, based on 1971 Census data.

Objective of freeze:

• Prevent States that controlled population growth from being penalised politically.

The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001:

• Continued the freeze on redistribution of Lok Sabha seats

• Till “the first Census after the year 2026”

With Census 2027, the constitutional suspension effectively expires.

Current representation is based on an India of 548 million (1971) versus ~1.47 billion today.

The next delimitation would:

• Reallocate seats among States (first time since 1976)

• Redraw all constituencies

• Implement 33% women’s reservation (as per constitutional mandate)

Past experience:

• Previous four Delimitation Commissions took 3–5.5 years

• The 2002–08 Commission only redrew internal boundaries, not seat distribution

Even if Census 2027 data is published in 2028:

• Delimitation likely to conclude only by 2031–32

Consequence:

1970s: Fertility rates across States were broadly similar

Present:

• Southern and western States: Below-replacement fertility

• Northern States (e.g., Uttar Pradesh, Bihar): Higher population growth

Root cause:

• Differential investments in education, health, women’s empowerment

If representation is based purely on population:

• States that successfully implemented population control lose political weight

• States that did not gain disproportionately

This contradicts:

• Five decades of national policy promoting small family norms

Expanded Lok Sabha: ~888 seats

Projected changes:

• Uttar Pradesh: 80 → 151 seats

• Bihar: 40 → 82 seats

• Combined share: over 26% of Lok Sabha

Southern States:

• Tamil Nadu: 39 → 53 seats

  • Share falls: 7.2% → 6.0%

• Kerala: 20 → 23 seats

  • Share falls: 3.7% → 2.6%

Key insight:

• Even if no State loses seats in absolute terms, relative influence declines

• Parliamentary power depends on absolute numbers, not proportions

Amit Shah stated in 2025 that no southern State would lose seats.

However:

• This does not prevent power concentration if northern States gain massively

• Suspending redistribution altogether could invite constitutional challenge

Pros:

• Preserves existing regional balance

Cons:

• Denies fast-growing States fair representation

• Vulnerable to challenge under Article 14 (Right to Equality)

From 543 to 750 or 888 seats

Ensures no State loses seats

But:

• Proportional allocation still benefits larger States disproportionately

Example:

• 70–80% population

• 20–30% development indicators

Indicators could include:

• Literacy

• Health outcomes

• Sustained fertility control

Inspired by:

• Finance Commission’s composite criteria for tax devolution

Issues:

• Removal of domicile requirement weakens State representation

• Seats still broadly population-based (U.P. 31 vs Sikkim 1)

Proposed reform:

• Restore domicile requirement

• Introduce tier-based equal representation, similar to the U.S. Senate

Illustrative model:

• Large States: 15 seats each

• Medium States: 10 seats

• Small States: 5 seats

U.P.’s projected dominance diluted by division into 3–4 States

Historical precedent:

• Creation of Uttarakhand (2000)

Ongoing demands:

• Bundelkhand

• Purvanchal

Rationale:

• Federal balance, not merely administrative convenience

Implement seat reallocation in stages:

• Half in 2034

• Remaining in 2039

Advantages:

• Reduces political shock

• Respects constitutional intent

If two States control over a quarter of Lok Sabha seats:

• Coalition arithmetic changes fundamentally

• Bargaining power of smaller and regional parties declines

Composition of Delimitation Commission should include:

• Demographers

• Constitutional law experts

• Federalism scholars

• Strong State representation

Process requirements:

• Transparency

• Public hearings

• Robust oversight

SC/ST reserved seats:

• Number determined strictly by population proportion

Concern:

• Location of SC constituencies involves discretion

• Potential scope for manipulation

Suggested reform:

Statement 1 is correct: Delimitation after every Census is constitutionally mandated.

Statement 2 is correct: Inter-State seat distribution has been frozen since 1976.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The 2002–08 Commission only redrew internal boundaries, not inter-State allocation.