Delimitation<\/a>, enshrined in Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution of India<\/a>, has stirred unprecedented passions that have taken shape in both serious and ludicrous ways. The serious ones stem from what the Constitution provides and its possible implications if implemented as provided. The ludicrous ones include calls by some who are asking people to \u2018multiply\u2019 rapidly to deal with the fear of being outnumbered..<\/p>\n As passions run high, there is a need to look at the issues dispassionately. Ironically, those who had hitherto accused the government of flouting constitutional principles, now want that the government does not act in accordance with the Constitution. Are the \u2018protectors of the Constitution\u2019 chasing their tail in asking for the \u2018freezing\u2019 or \u2018postponing\u2019 the delimitation exercise for sound reasons?<\/p>\n The Constitution provides that \u201cupon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted\u201d. A similar provision exists for the Vidhan Sabhas. Through the 42nd and subsequent amendments, this \u2018readjustment\u2019 was deferred till 2026. The Census after that will be the basis of any future delimitation, which has also caused much apprehension in the southern States. There is little evidence to justify their apprehensions but there is no reason to dismiss their fear.
<\/p>\n There is heated debate, justifiably so, on the principle of population proportionality and federalism and whether any principle enshrined in the Constitution should be used to undermine the other. It is clear that a mathematical approach to delimitation and allocation of seats based on population alone will benefit States where population growth has been faster than the rest.
<\/p>\n The data published by the Election Commission of India show that in the first general election in 1951-52 there were 489 Lok Sabha seats; 494 in 1957, and 520 in 1967 (as per the Delimitation Commission\u2019s Report of March 21, 1963 based on the 1961 Census). Thirty-one seats were added and five reduced from the previous election. Andhra Pradesh went down from 43 to 41, Madras, 41 to 39, and Uttar Pradesh, 86 to 85. Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Mysore, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh made gains. Besides, seats were added in new States such as Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry.<\/p>\n In the 1971 Lok Sabha election, two seats were reduced in Himachal Pradesh bringing the total to 518. In the 1977 election, 24 seats were added, taking the number to 542. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka (erstwhile Mysore), Orissa, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Haryana made gains, and new States such as Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Mizoram got additional seats. Daman and Diu was allotted a separate seat much later to take the total to 543 \u2014 which is the current strength of the Lok Sabha based on the 1971 Census.<\/p>\n An analysis of these trends suggests that any debate on delimitation must consider three issues: the principle of population as the basis of allocation of seats; the impact of public policy on the population criterion, and the \u2018representative\u2019 hue of those who are elected.
<\/p>\nData from the past and trends
<\/h4>\n
What needs to be considered
<\/h4>\n