Delimitation of constituencies

By Sanjay Kumar

WITH THE passing of the 91st Constitutional Amendment Bill by both Houses of Parliament, it is most likely that a freeze would be imposed on the total number of seats for the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies till 2026. Now it needs to be ratified by at least half of the Assemblies. Both Houses of Parliament has passed it without any sign of protest, and the Bill is most unlikely to face a protest in the Assemblies and is certain to be an Act.

If the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha is not to be increased, the quota of seats for different States is to be allocated on the basis of its population, and the principle of uniform population-seat ratio is followed for all the States, it is estimated that the four Southern States will lose as many as 15 Lok Sabha seats (Andhra Pradesh 3, Tamil Nadu 7, Karnataka 1 and Kerala 4) and the four Northern States of Uttar Pradesh (including Uttaranchal), Bihar (including Jharkhand), Madhya Pradesh (including Chattisgarh), and Rajasthan will gain 5, 3, 3 and 4 seats respectively and increase their quota by 15 seats. This may lead to protests from the Southern States and create a possible North-South divide. Parliament, by passing the 91st Constitutional Amendment Bill, has decided to put a ban on it putting at rest all speculation about any such fresh reallocation of seats between different States.

The ban till the year 2026 had been proposed as the population planners have projected that by that year the population of India would stabilise and the country could hope to have zero growth rate of population thereafter. As per the provisions of the proposed Bill, the next delimitation is to be carried out on the basis of the population of the country after 2026. This would actually mean that the delimitation would take place only after the next census, which would be only in 2031. Hence, the number of seats in the Lok Sabha would not change till 2031, whatever may be the population growth in the country.

The last delimitation committee was set up in 1972, which completed its work by 1975. The Constitution 42nd Amendment had put a ban on any further delimitation of constituencies till 2000 and the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies had remained the same till then. With the passing of the 91st Constitutional Amendment Bill, the ban would actually mean a freeze for more than 50 years.

The Constitution had laid down provisions for delimitation of constituencies after every census so that the population-seat ratio is maintained within the State and throughout the Union. The constant rise in the population has caused an enormous growth in the electorate. Thus, the electorate is not uniform in all the constituencies. Urban constituencies facing constant pressure of population migration had witnessed a faster rate of increase in the electorate as compared to other constituencies. It is known that Lok Sabha constituencies such as Outer Delhi and East Delhi have an electorate of 31 lakhs and 23 lakhs, while the average electorate for a Lok Sabha constituency is a little over 11 lakhs. Even in Delhi, the Chandini Chowk Lok Sabha constituency has less than four lakhs electorate. Several issues have been raised in the past about the disproportionate size of the constituencies. With the huge discrepancy in these Lok Sabha constituencies, does the value of the vote in the Outer Delhi and Chandini Chowk constituencies remain the same? Is it justified in having a similar expenditure limit fixed for these two constituencies? Is it correct to allow a similar number of campaigning days for these two different types of constituencies? Is it right to have a similar amount of developmental fund available for the dissimilar size of the electorate?

The delimitation commission which would be appointed soon would certainly engage itself in the exercise of redrawing the boundaries of the constituencies within the State and would try to do away with such glaring discrepancies. The commission, keeping other principles in mind, would carve out constituencies in such a way that all are more or less of equal size and it would try to maintain as far as possible the similar population- seat ratio within a State.

But we are also aware that some States have witnessed larger growth as compared to others. Population growth has some relation to the level of social and economic development. Developed States have witnessed lower population growth as compared to the backward and the underdeveloped ones. It is precisely because of this that States such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh or Rajasthan have seen larger population growth compared to the more developed Southern States. If the number of Lok Sabha seats for different States is not allocated on the basis of their population, the effect would be that backward States would have Lok Sabha constituencies with much bigger electorates as compared to the Lok Sabha constituencies in some of the Southern States. A member of parliament from these backward States would represent a bigger population as compared to an MP from a State with a lower population growth. Does this not lead to disenfranchisement of a large section of the population, a majority of whom are poor, deprived and backward?

With the present population and the existing number of members in Parliament, an MP should represent a population of nearly 19.3 lakhs. However, an MP from Rajasthan represents a population of nearly 23 lakhs, while an MP from Kerala or Tamil Nadu represents only 16 lakhs. Would this not mean unequal value of the vote for people living in different parts of this country? The value of a vote in Kerala or Karnataka would be greater as than that in Rajasthan.

Further, if the freeze on the number of seats is imposed till 2026, by that time an MP would be the representative of nearly 25 lakh people as the projected population for the country is about 140 crore by 2026. Do we expect an MP to be a representative of 25 lakh people? Can we reasonably expect him to deliver the goods to the people at large? Compared to the western countries, the constituencies in India are already too large and it may not be the right decision to make them larger. With a population of nearly 140 crores, China has nearly 3000 representatives in its apex body.

Merely because of the fear of a possible North-South divide, is it right to impose a freeze on the number of seats till 2026? In the past, from the first delimitation in 1952 till the third in 1972, Karnataka and Kerala gained seats - from 26 to 28 and from 18 to 20 - while Uttar Pradesh lost. From 86 seats allocated during the first delimitation, its number of seats was reduced to 85 during the second delimitation.

The present political and social situation is indeed somewhat different from what it was in the 50s and the 60s. The issue of a decrease in the number of seats for all the Southern States cannot be handled easily, but at the same time it is unwise to put a blanket ban on the number of seats. We need to give serious thought to increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha so that a uniform population-seat ratio is maintained in all the States without having any effect on the present total number of seats in the Lok Sabha for the Southern States.

(The writer is Associate Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Pakistan, Taliban and Osama
Next     : Air travel safety