The new Parliament building has space for more Lok Sabha members – a fact that tacitly indicates the Centre’s viewpoint on this contentious matter
Political parties, civil society, and academia must discuss the delimitation exercise threadbare because the political-social stakes are so high
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu recently declared, after ceremoniously kicking off the resumption of construction work at Amaravati, that his government intends to introduce legislation permitting only those with more than two children to contest local body elections.
Two days later, on October 21, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin upped the bar while blessing 31 couples who tied the knot in a mass wedding ceremony organised by the state’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Resorting to traditional wishes, he said that it would be more appropriate if newlyweds considered having 16 children instead of '16 forms of wealth'.
TFR in question
Although Stalin’s advice was seen as lighthearted banter on a joyous occasion, the backdrop of the assertion cannot be overlooked. Over the past few years, the CM has often highlighted that the people of the southern States are ironically likely to face ‘punishment’ for achieving the target set by the Union and state governments — to substantially reduce the total fertility rate (TFR) in the state’s population.
Naidu, too, has sent out less-than-discreet messages. In August, barely two months after assuming office, his government dropped the rule barring those with more than two children from contesting local body polls in Andhra Pradesh.
While Naidu is yet to say anything specifically about reversing the decades-old campaign mounted by the Centre and also the state government, advocating efforts to reduce the TFR to replacement levels by 2010, Stalin minced no words.
The CM of TN said: "When the elders used to wish ‘may you have 16 and live prosperously’, it didn’t mean 16 children but 16 forms of wealth...now nobody is blessing you to attain 16 forms of wealth. They only bless you to have adequate children and live prosperously. However, considering that parliamentary constituencies might reduce, a situation there could arise, to make you wonder if we should be having 16 children....”
Delimitation 'threat' for Southern states
Stalin unambiguously referred to the impending delimitation of parliamentary and state assembly constituencies, due after 2026. This crucial exercise, which determines the character of the electoral equation of the nation, hangs like Damocles’ Sword over the five southern States.
These States have done exceedingly well in meeting TFR targets, but paradoxically, the number of Lok Sabha seats from these states is poised to reduce proportionally unless the methodology of the exercise is altered. Stalin's call for more children was to draw the attention of the political class, which has worryingly not initiated discussions on a critical concern.
Naidu treads cautiously
But, despite taking two steps – junking the old rule debarring candidates with more than two children and the plan to introduce a new rule inverting the previous regulation – Naidu did not using the ‘D’ word and was only suggestive in his pronouncements.
Perhaps, the fact that the Telugu Desam Party is a member of the National Democratic Alliance besides being the BJP’s largest ally within the coalition, Naidu does not wish to be seen as flagging a potential issue of conflict.
In 2001-02, when the Ninety First Constitutional Amendment Bill – eventually passed in February 2002 as the Eighty Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act – was being debated, the nation’s lawmakers eventually agreed after protracted discussions that inter-State allocation of Lok Sabha seats (which state is allocated how many LS seats), as per the Census of 1971, will remain as it was at that time, at least until 2026.
Fourth delimitation commission
This agreement was made in consonance with the decision, under the Eighty Seventh Constitutional Act, that Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha seats within the States shall be redrawn or delimited on the basis of the 2001 Census.
This decision to defer altering for another 25 years the proportionate balance between the numbers of Lower House seats held by various states, followed the Forty Second Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 enacted during Emergency by Parliament almost a quarter of a century prior to that.
The Fourth Delimitation Commission – with Justice Kuldip Singh, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairperson – was established in July 2002 and remained in office till December 2007 when it submitted the final report.
In 2001, the decision to ‘freeze’ the number of LS seats from various states was essentially a political manoeuvre to push back a decision that had the potential to make people from the southern States rise in protest.
Rise in population is skewed
This stemmed from the fact that the last delimitation exercise (1973-76) was carried out according to the 1971 Census. Under the Forty Second Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, Parliament froze the number of constituencies to encourage population control measures so that states with higher population growth did not end up having a higher number of seats.
Since then, the rise in population over the last five decades has been skewed: The population of States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan has increased at a pace that is much higher than the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.
As a result, based on projected population in 2026 (by then partial data from the much-delayed 2021 Census may be available), the LS seats, if total is retained at 543, from the first lot of northern States – or what demographers dubbed as BIMARU States, shall be: UP – 91, Bihar – 50, MP – 33, and Rajasthan – 31.
Southern states take a hit
In contrast, the seats from the five southern States could decline to: AP+ Telangana – 34, TN – 31, Kerala – 12, and Karnataka – 26. Collectively the total number of LS seats of these States will decline from 129 to 103, a fairly large and significant loss in parliamentary presence. From that point of view, Stalin’s apprehension, shared not so explicitly by Naidu, is understandable and calls for initiation of discussion on the subject immediately.
Delimitation and the proportion of total seats from various states and their population is a thorny and delicate matter and cannot merely be laid out by the guiding principle ‘one-citizen-one-vote-one-value’ in the Indian democracy because of the diversity of our identities, individual and collective.
Based on the Census of 1951, 1961 and 1971, the strength of the Lok Sabha was fixed at 494, 522 and 543. Given the vision and perspective of members of the Constituent Assembly, it can be presumed that the raison d'être behind Article 81 (2a) was to ensure that more developed States did not get allotted more seats.
But it is time, after India has become a more identity-based polity and fragmented into greater number of sub-identities, to ensure parliamentary representation remains at par with what has been the case so far.
It needs to be widely discussed if the principle of the aforementioned Article, “there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States…” should be continued or another ‘freeze’ be applied, if so, then for how long.
Even Northen states are worried
Stalin’s anxieties and worries were shared by other leaders not just from southern India but also from the North — especially Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh, whose seats would also decline if the population-to-seats ratio was applied without modification.
Peculiarly, despite the position of its largest coalition partner, the government has maintained a deafening silence on this knotty issue. The dawn of 2026 is barely 14 months away and it would be prudent for the Centre to initiate discussions on the issue.
Furthermore, the urgency with which the Centre pursued the construction and completion of the new Parliament building, and also making it operational, suggests a tilt towards diminishing the political clout of the southern States.
The new building, as is known, has space for 888 Lok Sabha members – a fact that tacitly indicates the Centre’s viewpoint on this contentious matter.
Despite this, all political parties, especially BJP’s coalition partners and those in Opposition, need to brainstorm on the matter and discuss the issues prior to the impending beginning of the year 2026.
Although, this is not a deadline in the strict sense (the Eighty Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act stated that the next delimitation would be on the basis of the first Census after 2026), plans and positions of the political leadership and even civil society, media and academia has to be evolved well in time.
Caught between multiple fault lines, India’s future will be better served if conflict on the basis of region – and language which remains an intertwined matter, is avoided by taking steps to ensure that it does not engulf the country.
Naidu and Stalin may not have raked the central matter on the political fallout of better population control, but it is time for other parties to take the hint. It would be most appropriate if the Centre and the Bharatiya Janata Party do not allow this matter to boil over.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
Next Story
