Constituency delimitation: government's motive still unclear

Debates are still on about the constituency delimitation exercise. A recent development is that Opposition leader in the Rajya Sabha and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge wrote a letter on the 16th of this month suggesting an all-party meeting in this regard. But Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju replied on 19th pointing out that the government had already written letters to the Congress during last March and April seeking their co-operation and that the same request was made verbally during meeting. He also claimed that discussions were also held with several other Opposition parties on the issue. But what the Opposition demands is an all-party meeting, not separate meetings with individual parties. The crux of the matter is that the ruling party has not yet revealed the content of the proposed bill for a constitutional amendment regarding delimitation. All the same, co-operation of the Opposition, or at least a crucial number of them,  is needed to secure two thirds support for the Constitutional amendment bill to pass.

As per the Constitution, after each census the constituencies of Lok Sabha and State assemblies are to be demarcated. However, after the 1971 census and the subsequent delimitation, the constituencies were frozen first until 2000 and later until 2026 through constitutional amendments . The reason was that if the constituencies were to be subject to delimitation proportionately to the population, states that made progress in population control would stand to lose, with proportionately reduced representation. But that situation also engendered fresh ideas about delimitation while increasing Lok Sabha’s strength to 850 from the current 543. And if this increased strength is proportionately allocated to states in the existing strength of 543, Uttar Pradesh would get 143 instead of 80, Rajasthan 29 instead of 20 whereas Keralam, Karnatakam Punjab would end up with 20, 41, 18 respectively in the place of 20, 28 and 13. In other words, because of effective implementation of population control the representation in parliament of theses states would go down considerably. Thus, even if the strength of the Lok Sabha is maintained at 543, a new census in 2027 is likely to result in similar population ratio changes. For example, as per 2026 population projections, the estimate is that Kerala’s seats will go down from 20 to 12 and Andhra/Telangana’s from 40 to 34. For this very reason, southern states as well as other states that have achieved major population control are unwilling to accept such a delimitation.

Although the government has not put forward formal proposals, Home Minister Amit Shah has verbally stated that the plan is to increase the seats of all states across the board by 50 per cent. That means UP’s strength will go up to 120 from 80 and Kerala’s to 30 from 20. However, the Opposition has not come out with a firm stand on this either. Nor are they sure whether this will make a solution to the current conundrum. In addition, the methodology of delimitation of constituencies is unclear too. That said, DMK, an opposition party has indicated that it would accept increasing the seats provided it is proportionate to existing strength.  But even they have asked the government to spell out what kind of legislation the government would go for. When a bill was moved in Parliament months ago, proposing increased Lok Sabha strength, the problem only got complicated because it was clubbed with the women’s quota bill. The ploy used by the government in this was that with an increase in total seats to accommodate women, the number of male members would not be reduced. But even if the increase is effected proportionately, it will add to the absolute numbers of members of each state. That would also curtail drastically the time available for 850 members to participate in discussions. Even as it is, members run short of time to speak, and also to raise questions which have separate limits for written and oral answers. It is true that with an envisaged strength of Lok Sabha, the house is physically equipped to seat 880 people. But seating alone will not suffice. There should be sufficient opportunities for proceedings to be effective with adequate representation. A higher strength of Lok Sabha may result in voters in a particular constituency getting easier access to their MP, but the imbalance will still continue. That is to say 57,000 voters of Lakshadweep may be able to meet their MP with greater ease than those in Telangana’s Malkajgiri with over 37 lakh voters.

By increasing the length of Parliament’s sessions and reducing the gap between sessions, legislative activity can be more detailed and fruitful. Statistics show that in the 17th Lok Sabha,  35 per cent bills were passed with discussion lasting less than an hour, and 80 per cent of bills were passed through guillotine - several bills packed and passed in one go. This does not bode well for a healthy parliament’s performance. Only if the state-wise proportionate strength are weighed together with such qualitative practices can parliament be made effective in a democracy.