Mentor’s Comment

The impending delimitation exercise after 2026 has emerged as a critical constitutional issue with deep federal and political consequences. The article examines how population-based representation may structurally disadvantage southern States. This debate has direct relevance for representation, equity, and cooperative federalism under GS Paper II.

Why in the News

India is approaching a major delimitation exercise after 2026, when the freeze on seat allocation based on population ends. The issue is important because southern States may lose political representation despite controlling population growth. This is a clear departure from earlier decades, when seats were frozen to avoid penalising such States. The impact is nationwide, with long-term effects on federal balance, parliamentary power, and democratic fairness.

What has changed in India’s delimitation framework?

1. Constitutional freeze: Parliamentary seats were frozen based on the 1971 Census to incentivise population stabilisation.
2. Policy shift: The freeze ends after the first Census conducted post-2026.
3. Institutional trigger: A new Delimitation Commission is expected to be constituted after 2029.
4. Structural impact: Representation will realign strictly with population size, altering regional political balance.

Why do southern States face disproportionate losses?

1. Demographic success: Southern States reduced fertility through education and health investments.
2. Relative population decline: Slower population growth reduces their share in national totals.
3. Seat reallocation effect: Population-based delimitation transfers seats to high-growth northern States.
4. Political consequence: Reduced parliamentary influence despite better governance outcomes.

How does population-based representation create perverse incentives?

1. Rewarding high fertility: States with higher population growth gain more seats.
2. Punishing stabilisation: States that controlled population lose political power.
3. Policy distortion: Weakens incentives for long-term human development investments.
4. Federal imbalance: Shifts dominance towards large-population States.

What alternative models does the article propose?

1. Increasing total seats: Expands Lok Sabha strength while retaining proportional shares.
2. Redistribution using 2011 Census: Adjusts seats without penalising earlier performers.
3. Equal State representation: Ensures minimum parity across States regardless of population.
4. Weighted representation: Balances population size with demographic performance indicators.

Why is the Digressive Proportionality principle relevant?

1. Conceptual basis: Larger States receive more seats but fewer per capita than smaller States.
2. Comparative example: Used in the European Union Parliament.
3. Equity outcome: Prevents domination by large States.
4. Democratic balance: Protects both population equality and federal fairness.

What role should constitutional institutions play?

1. Finance Commission precedent: Rewards demographic performance through fiscal transfers.
2. Institutional symmetry: Delimitation Commission can adopt similar equity principles.
3. Performance linkage: Aligns political representation with responsible governance.
4. Negotiated federalism: Requires Centre–State consensus before implementation.

Conclusion

Delimitation must strike a balance between population-based representation and federal equity. A purely demographic approach risks penalising States that achieved population stabilisation through effective governance. A calibrated, consensus-driven framework is necessary to preserve cooperative federalism, democratic fairness, and long-term national unity.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now