In tables: Delimitation could also cut SC, ST and Muslim representation

The recent debate about delimitation has set South India against the north.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has pointed out that the process of redrawing constituency boundaries, ostensibly to ensure fair representation in keeping with rising populations, will punish the more affluent southern states.

These states have been more successful in controlling their numbers, so they would have a lower proportion of representatives in Parliament than the more populous northern states if delimitation is conducted in line with results of the next census.

But it is not just southern states that will lose out. A look at the manner in which delimitation has previously been undertaken shows that the representation of Dalits and Muslims could also be reduced.

What is delimitation?

Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution say that the number of seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies should be readjusted after each census. This delimitation process is performed by the Delimitation Commission, which was set up under an act of Parliament.

The delimitation process also determines whether a constituency will be reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

Constituencies were redrawn after the 1951, 1961, and 1971 census operations. However, in 1976, the process was stalled for the next 25 years to encourage population control programmes. It was decided that the 1971 population would be considered the baseline to determine the number of constituencies.

In 2001, when the time came to readjust the size of constituencies as per the Constitution and to increase seats, the Vajpayee government, due to the fragility of its coalition, decided to postpone the decision on increasing the number of seats for the next 25 years.

However, a delimitation commission was set up in 2002 to focus only on redrawing the boundaries of many constituencies and on reserving constituencies for members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Its recommendations were implemented in the general elections in 2009.

The decision to increase the number of seats was kept on hold for another 25 years.

The 2021 census, which would form the basis for the next set of changes, had to be postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and delays from the Central government. As a consequence, the next delimitation process is likely to start in 2026.

In the meantime, two pilot projects have taken place: in Jammu and Kashmir in 2022, after its special status under the Constitution was abrogated, and in 2023 in Assam, which was kept out of the purview of delimitation in 2009.

These previous exercises show that delimitation has often resulted in discrimination against minority communities. It has also failed to advance the cause of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.

Muslim representation

One of the most common forms of discrimination is gerrymandering: electoral boundaries are drawn in ways that divide Muslim-majority areas, diluting their voting strength.

This can prevent Muslims from having enough influence in any single constituency, making it harder for community representatives to win elections.

After the scrapping of the former state’s special status, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, mandated fresh delimitation, by increasing assembly seats from 83 to 90. The seat count in the Jammu region increased from 37 to 43. This strengthened the region’s influence in the state assembly.

In the Muslim-majority Valley, however, after delimitation, seats increased by just one, increasing to 47. Besides, six of the nine newly reserved Scheduled Tribes seats are in Valley, while three are in Jammu.

In Assam, when fresh delimitation processes were undertaken in 2023, some problems became evident.

For example, Dhubri and Barpeta used to be Muslim-majority seats. Both had Muslim populations of more than 60% and always elected Muslim MPs. After delimitation, three Muslim-majority assembly seats of Barpeta – Chenga, Baghbar, and Jania – were transferred to Dhubri, increasing its voter base drastically by 10 lakh.

As a result, only Dhubri Lok Sabha now has a high Muslim population but Barpeta was realigned, reducing the Muslim population to 35%.

In West Bengal, the Katwa Lok Sabha seat had a Muslim population of around 40%. From 1952 to 2009, it has always elected a Muslim MP. In 2009, this constituency was divided into two Lok Sabha seats – Bardhaman Purba and Bardhaman Durgapur.

Both have an estimated Muslim population of around 20%. Besides, Bardhaman Purba is reserved for a representative of the Scheduled Castes. Since delimitation, neither of these constituencies has elected a Muslim MP.

Muslim-majority seats reserved for SCs/STs

In some cases, the Delimitation Commission has reserved seats for members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes even though there are fewer members of these communities and more Muslim residents. This has effectively reduced Muslim numbers from the legislatures.

Here are some examples, though the actual list is much longer.

Discrimination against SCs, STs

Ironically, some seats have been reserved to benefit Dalits and Adivasis but there are several seats, in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, that have significant populations of these communities but are unreserved and open to be contested by all communities.

This has hindered the emergence of effective community leaders from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in areas where they have strong numbers and can raise the issues of these communities.

South Indian states

Since the size of constituencies was frozen in 1976 with the census data of 1971 as its basis, India’s population has witnessed a manifold increase, coupled with substantial shifts in internal demographics.

In Bihar, for instance, each Member of Parliament represents approximately 3.1 million citizens, while in Kerala, the corresponding ratio stands at 1.75 million.

If the delimitation is undertaken based on the 2026 census, southern states – which have implemented family planning measures effectively – may experience a reduction in the number of parliamentary seats allocated to them.

If the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha is retained at the current figure of 543 and reapportioned among states based on the projected population of 2026, the difference between some North Indian and Southern states will be significant, as the table shows.

Further, if the number of seats is increased to 848, based on the projected population of 2026 in a house in which proportional representation for all states remains the same, the difference between some Northern states and the Southern states will be as follows:

A decrease in representation will diminish the political influence of southern states in the Lok Sabha, affecting their ability to advocate for favorable policies and secure adequate resource allocation from the Central government.

Road ahead

In October 2024, a Supreme Court bench passed an order upholding the court’s power to review orders of the Delimitation Commission if they are deemed arbitrary or in violation of constitutional principles.

This has left a window of hope open for citizens to challenge delimitation principles that limit the representation of marginalised communities or certain states.

However, more than judicial intervention, it will take definitive political action by political parties to ensure equity in the process. Instead of merely highlighting how Southern states will be underrepresented after the process, the Opposition should also speak out on how delimitation will hurt the representation of Muslims and members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

Banojyotsna Lahiri is a Senior Researcher working with the SPECT Research Association.

Imran Ansar works in Media and Communication at the SPECT Research Association.

Nadeem Khan is a social activist associated with the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights and the SPECT Research Association.