Delimitation - II of II

This freezing of parliamentary seats according to the 1971 census has several consequences:

1.  India no longer adheres to the principle of “one person, one vote”. One aspect of the “one person, one vote” concept was about granting every single Indian over 18 the right to vote in elections. But for this idea to be meaningful, constituency sizes must be roughly equal. The random circumstance of being born in Bihar means that the constituency size is about 3.1 million, but if the same person is born in or moves to Kerala, the value of their vote increases because the constituency size is 1.75 million.
2. The overall population growth has meant that all Indians are underrepresented (though not equally so) because the Indian constituencies are too large. Currently, across India, the average MP represents 2.5 million people. The size of each constituency is too large compared to other countries and compared to the original Indian Constitution, which capped the ratio at one MP per 750,000.
3. Poorer regions experienced a fall in fertility rates later than relatively richer regions. Poorer Indians are trapped in regions that have higher malapportionment, and therefore, are underrepresented in Parliament.
4.  The states with larger average constituency sizes have a larger share of the population below 25. These states are in the poorer regions where fertility rates fell later. These states therefore have more young people which means that youth are underrepresented in Parliament, and this problem will only worsen.
5.  SC/ST fertility rates are both higher and dropped later compared to other groups. Seats are reserved for SC/ST groups in each state based on the population share of SC/STs in the given state. Now, the SC/ST groups are estimated to be 4 seats short in the Lok Sabha, relative to their population in the states.
6.  Another group affected by the delimitation freeze are Muslims, as Muslim fertility rates are higher and declined later than other religious groups. 

Most see delimitation as a nuisance, a problem that cannot be resolved, and they offer no better solution than to push it back by another 25 years, as was done in 2001. Many state governments, particularly regional parties in southern Indian states, have repeatedly expressed their opposition to any attempt at changing the existing proportions of Lok Sabha seats. Most recently, Telangana IT Minister KT Rama Rao said that southern states must not be penalised for “controlling their population growth and concentrating on development.”

Though most politically palatable,  this “delimitation is best avoided” framing is problematic since it goes against the basic tenet of parliamentary democracy of 'one person one vote'. The longer the process drags on, the more pain will eventually be felt. Had India reallocated seats after each decennial census, the composition of the Lok Sabha would have changed gradually over time. After decades of avoiding the hard decision, any future reapportionment will inevitably induce abrupt changes in the balance of political power. 

If the Indian Parliament doesn’t postpone dealing with the issue again, the problem will require a permanent solution in 2031. One option is to return to the original constitutional ratio of one MP per 750,000, in which case the Lok Sabha would need to expand to 1,872 seats which seems excessive. 

But expanding the size of the house may be more politically feasible than reapportioning the current number of seats. After all, representatives tend to object to any arrangement that takes seats away from their state (which potentially places their own job on the chopping block) but may be less opposed to adding more seats. Another option that has been suggested is that the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha increases such that no state loses its current number of electoral seats. (As of today, the Lok Sabha has a maximum of 545 representatives filling these seats.)

To achieve this without malapportionment, the total number of seats in Lok Sabha would need to be 848 by 2026. (However, it’s important to note that the states would lose proportional share/power in Lok Sabha based on the change in demographics since 1971.) Under this proposal, Uttar Pradesh would have a whopping 143 seats, while Kerala’s parliamentary delegation of 20 would remain unchanged. This would exceed the maximum strength of any lower house or unicameral body in a democratic country today, the highest currently being the UK with 650 seats in the lower house. 

Unsurprisingly, reapportionment carries profound implications for political parties. Parties with bases concentrated in fast-growing northern states — like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — would gain power at the expense of southern regional heavyweights. Whatever formula is adopted, there will be a lot of people in India who will be unhappy about this issue in 2031.