Demographic shift: Delimitation, democracy, and dilemma of doing well

As India approaches the end of its decades-long freeze on constituency realignment in 2026, the word “delimitation” has returned to public discourse — sharpened by anxiety, especially in the South. At the heart of this unease is Tamil Nadu, a state that has not only excelled in population control and socio-economic development but may now be penalised for it.

Delimitation refers to redrawing Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituency boundaries based on the latest census data to ensure proportional representation. The Indian Constitution allows this under Articles 82 and 170, but a freeze was introduced in 1976 (42nd Amendment) and extended in 2001 (84th Amendment) to incentivise states to curb population growth. This means the current seat allocations in Parliament are based on 1971 Census data — over five decades old.

Tamil Nadu’s success in controlling its total fertility rate (TFR) — now well below replacement levels — has made it one of India’s most demographically stable states. Its investments in public health, women’s education, and welfare governance have paid dividends. But come delimitation, the very states like Tamil Nadu that succeeded in family planning stand to lose parliamentary representation. In contrast, states that lag in these areas — like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar — will gain. The state contributes over 8.5 per cent to India’s GDP despite comprising only

six per cent of the population, and has among the highest tax compliance rates and per capita social spending. Yet, under a post-2026 delimitation, its relative influence in the Lok Sabha could shrink, despite its disproportionate contribution to national growth.

Historically, delimitation has occurred four times — in 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002. However, since the number of Lok Sabha seats per state hasn’t changed since 1971, Tamil Nadu has managed to retain its 39 seats. However, projections suggest that Uttar Pradesh may increase from 80 to nearly 100, and Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan could all see significant gains. Tamil Nadu, meanwhile, might see a decline in its representation per capita, altering its leverage in national politics.

From Delhi’s vantage point, the logic for delimitation is straightforward: “One person, one vote” is a cornerstone of democracy, and current allocations are grossly outdated. The Union government argues that democratic legitimacy and electoral fairness seem to be undermined if adequate representation of the growing population is not represented or denied. Tamil Nadu’s position is certainly well-intentioned, but do not match this perspective of the Centre.

Concerns raised by Tamil Nadu are not arbitrary as well. First, representational rights cannot be isolated from the broader developmental responsibilities. Now, if ‘only population’ becomes the basis of awarding electoral seats without factoring in good governance, then by all means, there is a fair possibility that states will be disincentivised to control population.

This may actually turn out to be counterproductive in the long run. States like Tamil Nadu, which have shown substantial progress in controlling population and succeeded in moving along the growth trajectory with development, may view this as the stick instead of the carrot. Second, another possibility is the fear of political centralisation through delimitation.

There is a perception that the voices of linguistic and cultural minorities are often diluted numerically, and there is a fear that delimitation may actually erode India’s federal spirit.

Third, there is an ethical contradiction as well. The government of India prescribed to control the population for all obvious reasons. States responded, in their own way, with model programmes in family welfare, education and economic inclusion. Tamil Nadu is no exception, and perhaps one of the front runners in controlling population. However, with delimitation, the rules are changing for sure, but not in their favour.

It’s not only about the loss of electoral seats alone. There are chances of socio-economic consequences that may not be favourable for the state. In India, the devolutions from the Central Finance Commission and other resource allocations are largely tied to demographic weights. Thus, with delimitation, the states have a fear of a reduction in their influence over policy periodisation, fund allocation and national agenda setting. This, in turn, may deepen the North-South fiscal divide.

Apprehending these tensions, and to be fair, the Central Government has hinted at opting for counterbalancing mechanisms. For example, the Centre hinted towards reforming the Finance Commission formula, strengthening the Rajya Sabha or mechanisms like differentiated seat-weighting. Certainly, thoughtful ideas, but they need to be announced and implemented formally, else the speculations and debates will continue.

Well, democracy is not just about arithmetic. It is also about balancing equity, efficiency, and ethics. On one hand, a purely population-driven delimitation risks isolating states that have governed well. Conversely, democratic fairness is undermined if representation is frozen indefinitely. Therefore, there is a need to design a federal architecture that honours both these principles. No state should be penalised for performing well, also populous states must have adequate representation. Delimitation is not merely a technical adjustment. It is a political recalibration with deep consequences for the Union. Therefore, not as an administrative inevitability, but rather the issue of delimitation must be approached as a constitutional dialogue. This is a chance to exchange ideas and dialogues to ask not just how many people live in each state, but what kind of nation we want to be.

Debdulal Thakur is Professor and Dean at Vinayaka Mission’s School of Economics and Public Policy, Chennai