Different value for different votes

The number of seats in each state remains unchanged. An important implication is that the Hindi heartland would be under-represented in Parliament to the benefit of the southern states. That is, the 11 Hindi speaking states and Union territories would have 18 seats less than their population share, while the 6 southern states/UTs will have 12 more than theirs. The next delimitation will not be carried out before 2026. Given the continued divergence in population growth, the under-representation of Hindi states would increase to 37 seats and over-representation of the south to 26 seats by 2026. In the next election, Uttar Pradesh alone would have a deficit of 8 seats, which would widen to 16 seats by 2026.

The last such exercise was carried out after the 1971 Census. The Constitution originally stipulated that delimitation be carried out after every census so that each MP represented the same number of people. In the ’70s, this stipulation was seen to penalise areas that had successfully implemented family planning policies, and the Constitution was amended to postpone the process till 2000. The Constitution was again amended in 2002 and 2003 specifying that the 2001 Census be used. After these amendments, delimitation keeps unchanged the number of seats from each state. It uses data from the 2001 Census to redraw constituencies to provide equal representation within each state. It also identifies constituencies to be reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The new constituencies would be in force till 2026.

While the population of several central and northern states has grown at a higher rate than the national average, the number of Lok Sabha seats for all states has not changed. Therefore, these central and northern states have a lower representation than their share of population. Indeed, the decision to maintain the number of seats constant was taken so that the delimitation process doesn’t disincentivise family planning. Whether the number of seats works as an incentive for couples to adopt birth control practices is a moot point. The process also doesn’t account for population changes by inter-state migration.

Four distinct issues arise from this decision. The primary one is whether the process deviates from the core principle of universal adult suffrage. The representation of a voter from Kerala (6.3 MPs per crore persons) is 42 per cent higher than that of a Rajasthani voter (4.4 MPs per crore persons). Variations of this magnitude clearly violate the concept of equal representation.

Second, states with a higher population growth since 1971 are likely to have the same in the next two decades too. The next delimitation will not take place till 2026. The census office has projected state-wise population trends for the next two decades. Using this data, the Rajasthan-Kerala divide widens to 75 per cent in 2026. Among states with population over a crore, Delhi (2.5 MPs per crore persons) is the lowest and Tamil Nadu (5.4) the highest: that is, a Delhi MP represents more than double the number of persons represented by a Tamil Nadu MP.

Third, higher population growth is correlated with less development, incomes and governance standards. Giving a lower representation to these states could arguably lead to a further deficit in governance.

Fourth, the balance of political influence is affected. If the constituencies had been drawn with equal representation, parties with support base in the heartland states (BSP, SP, RJD) would have gained clout at the expense of the southern parties (AIADMK, DMK, TDP); this will not happen now. The left parties should also be happy, as their three stronghold states would have lost 3 seats now, and 9 seats by 2026 if constituencies had been recast on the basis of equal representation. In the era of coalition governments, these changes could have significant implications on political power sharing.

The writer heads research at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi madhavan@prsindia.org