Such a shift would reward high-fertility states while penalising those that followed responsible population control policies, argue southern states
As the country gears up for a politically turbulent year ahead, major changes lie on the horizon, one of the most significant being the planned delimitation exercise in 2026. The Government of India, led by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is set to review and redraw the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies.
At its core, delimitation is the redrawing of constituency boundaries to reflect population shifts and ensure fair representation. On the surface, it seems like a routine update, rewarding larger populations with more political weight. It is also a constitutional exercise under Article 82, which mandates a readjustment of Lok Sabha and state assembly seats after every Census.
However, this seemingly fair adjustment has already triggered pushback, especially from southern states, where concerns are growing that the process may shift political power disproportionately, sidelining regions that have effectively managed population growth over the years.
Southern states outraged at the plan
Despite Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s assurance that southern states’ concerns will be addressed in due course, opposition to the upcoming 2026 delimitation exercise remains strong, especially from Tamil Nadu, which has challenged the idea of basing seat allocation solely on population.
Experts warn that this approach could severely dilute the political voice of southern states. For instance, Kerala, which has among the lowest fertility rates in India, is expected to lose 5 pc of its seats, dropping from 20 to 19. Tamil Nadu would see only a 5 pc increase, going from 39 to 41 seats. Karnataka would register a 29 pc rise, from 28 to 36, Telangana an 18 pc increase, from 17 to 20, and Andhra Pradesh a 12 pc jump from 25 to 28.
In sharp contrast, high-population states in the North would see massive gains. Uttar Pradesh is projected to receive a 60 pc increase, going from 80 to 128 seats. Madhya Pradesh would rise by 62 pc, from 29 to 47, Bihar by 75 pc, from 40 to 70, Maharashtra by 42 pc, from 48 to 68, and Rajasthan by 76 pc from 25 to 44.
As a result, southern leaders argue that such a shift would reward high-fertility states while penalising those that followed responsible population control policies, ultimately discouraging good governance. Concerns about gerrymandering have also emerged, with many drawing parallels to Nepal’s 2015 delimitation, where the Terai region, despite having 50 pc of the population, ended up with fewer seats due to a geography-heavy constituency formula that benefited less populated hill districts.
The concerns are not just political but also fiscal. An increase in seats for northern states could translate into higher central funding per MP, putting greater financial pressure on the region, which already contributes disproportionately to the national economy. With reduced representation, these states fear they could be outvoted on policies they see as misaligned with their development priorities.
For southern states, delimitation based purely on population is not just about numbers, it is about fairness and federal balance.
As a result, several prominent politicians, including Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin, MA Baby, and KT Rama Rao, have publicly questioned the rationale behind this approach to delimitation.
Implications of postponing delimitation
Some legal experts question the justification for delaying the delimitation process.
According to Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, postponing delimitation would violate the constitutional mandate under Article 82 and could potentially delay the passage of key constitutional reforms.
“It has been over five decades since we had a proper delimitation exercise based on actual population changes, and the imbalance is glaring. Some Lok Sabha MPs today represent more than 2.5 million people, while others represent under a million. The current freeze keeps the number of seats in the Lok Sabha static at 543, despite huge population shifts. If we do not conduct delimitation after 2026, we are not just missing a constitutional deadline under Article 82, we are also risking the perception of institutional inertia or even selective delay. It could also stall important reforms like the Women’s Reservation Act, which explicitly links women’s political representation to the next delimitation,” Singh tells Media India Group.
Echoing similar concerns, Mir Imran, an advocate based in North Kashmir, stated that using outdated electoral boundaries has diluted the value of the vote, undermining the principle of true electoral equality.
“There is a clear population mismatch across regions, some constituencies in central and northern India have far more people than others. But we are still using outdated boundaries, so one vote doesn’t have equal value everywhere, which goes against the principle of equality. We have also committed to fair representation internationally under the ICCPR treaty. In Jammu & Kashmir, the imbalance is worse, some areas have many more voters, but boundaries were never updated. The National Conference, backed by successive Congress governments, resisted these changes for years, helping them stay in power and blocking new leadership. It became more about seats and numbers than real democracy,” Imran tells Media India Group.
In Bihar, Upendra Kushwaha, leader of the Rashtriya Lok Samta Party (RLSP) and an NDA ally, recently launched his election campaign from Muzaffarpur with a direct call to correct this imbalance.
Addressing the rally, Kushwaha advocated for delimitation. He said that had the process been carried out on time, the number of Lok Sabha seats in Bihar would have increased to around 60, thereby boosting representation for Scheduled Castes and women. He also warned of launching an agitation against what he termed a “gross injustice” to the state.
According to Singh, if delimitation is not conducted, India risks slipping into democratic deficit, with elections being held on outdated population figures from 1971.
“If delimitation does not proceed as mandated, we risk a democratic deficit, elections are still being held on 1971 population figures. That erodes the legitimacy of Parliament, disturbs the federal balance, and delays key reforms like women’s reservation. The lack of clarity on Census planning only deepens the uncertainty. As per critics, this delay, both in Census and delimitation, may be politically motivated, allowing the ruling party to preserve a status quo where southern and western states wield more legislative influence than their population warrants. For a country that calls itself the world’s largest democracy, this inertia could become its biggest democratic challenge since the Emergency,” adds Singh.
According to Mir, the failure to carry out delimitation has denied politically sensitive regions like Jammu & Kashmir a fair representation for decades.
“Delimitation is crucial for free and fair elections, but it is also politically sensitive. Any further delay especially without updated census data, risks weakening India’s democratic process. In places like Jammu & Kashmir, fair representation has already been denied for decades. At this point, India has to choose, uphold constitutional principles or keep delaying for political convenience,” adds Mir.
Call for 25-year freeze gains ground in southern states
At an all-party meeting led by Stalin on March 22, a resolution was passed urging the Centre to continue using the 1971 Census as the basis for Lok Sabha seat delimitation for another 25 years from 2026. This echoes the 42nd Amendment under Indira Gandhi, which froze delimitation until 2001, later extended to 2026 via the 84th Amendment. R S Nilkantan, data scientist and author of South vs North: India’s Great Divide, says southern states, by setting a limit, are signalling their push for decentralisation and more state-level power.
“The problem with unfreezing delimitation is that there are no perfect solutions. If you unfreeze it, the South loses out. If you keep it frozen, it is unfair to states like UP and Bihar, where populations have surged. Future generations will bear the cost of past mistakes, and no Tamil wants that to continue. The answer lies in devolving more power to states and reducing the Centre’s role, but that takes time.” Nilkantan tells Media India Group.
He further adds that by asking for a freeze of 25 years, there is a possibility of achieving extended decentralisation.
“The hope with a 25-year freeze is to use that time to push for decentralisation, reducing the Union government’s powers in policymaking. Ideally, by then, it won’t matter how many MPs each state sends to Parliament because the Centre’s role would be limited. That is why Tamil people support a 25-year cut-off, not 50. A 50-year freeze would mean giving up on decentralisation and permanently denying fair representation to northern states, something no Tamil wants either,” adds Nilkantan.