Relevance: GS Paper II (Parliament & State Legislatures; Federalism; Constitutional Amendments) | Source: The Hindu / Indian Express (Based on S.Y. Quraishi’s analysis)

Context

The current freeze on the number of Lok Sabha seats, fixed since 1976 based on the 1971 Census, will effectively expire with the first Census after 2026 (likely Census 2027). This will necessitate a Delimitation Commission to redraw boundaries and reallocate seats based on a population of 1.47 billion.

This exercise threatens to create a seismic shift in India’s political power structure, pitting the demographic dominance of the North against the developmental success of the South.

The Core Conflict: “Moral Paradox”

The delimitation exercise creates a clash between two fundamental pillars of the Constitution:

• Democracy (One Vote, One Value): Principles of representation dictate that states with higher populations (North) must get more seats to ensure every citizen’s vote has equal weight.
• Federalism (Equity of States): Federal principles suggest that states which followed national policy and successfully controlled their population (South) should not be punished for their success.
• The Paradox: For 50 years, India urged states to control population (National Population Policy). Southern states succeeded and now stand to lose political weight, while Northern states that lagged in population control stand to gain massively. This effectively punishes “Good Governance.”

The Six Options Proposed by S.Y. Quraishi

Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi outlines six potential paths to navigate this crisis:

Critical Insights for UPSC

• The Arithmetic of Power: If delimitation is done purely on population, Uttar Pradesh (rising from 80 to ~143 seats) and Bihar could together command over 25% of the Lok Sabha. Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu (dropping from 39 to ~31 in share) and Kerala would see their voices shrink.
• Coalition Dynamics: Regional parties that historically provided a “parliamentary balance” (the Kingmakers) would lose leverage. A national party sweeping just the Hindi Heartland could theoretically form a government without needing a single seat from the South.

UPSC Value Box

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 82: Mandates Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census.
• 84th Amendment Act (2001): Extended the ban on readjustment of seats until the first census after 2026.

Legal & Global Precedents:

• Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006): The SC upheld the removal of the “domicile” requirement for Rajya Sabha. Critics argue this turned the “Council of States” into a “Parking lot for politicians,” weakening federalism.
• Finance Commission Analogy: The 15th Finance Commission used 2011 census data but introduced “Demographic Performance” (12.5% weight) to reward states with lower fertility rates. A similar formula could be applied to seat allocation.
• US Senate Model: In the USA, while the House is based on population, the Senate gives equal representation (2 seats) to every state, regardless of size (Wyoming vs California), acting as a federal check. India lacks this check.

Summary

The impending delimitation after 2027 poses a grave challenge to India’s federal fabric. While democratic principles demand updating seat counts based on the new population (1.47 billion), doing so blindly punishes the progressive Southern states. A balanced solution—perhaps borrowing the “Demographic Performance” logic from the Finance Commission or reforming the Rajya Sabha—is essential to prevent political alienation.

One Line Wrap: The delimitation exercise must ensure that the “voice of the people” (Democracy) does not drown out the “voice of the states” (Federalism).

Q. “The upcoming delimitation exercise presents a unique challenge where the principles of democratic representation collide with the spirit of cooperative federalism.” Discuss the concerns of Southern states and suggest constitutional measures to address them. (15 Marks, 250 Words)