Unfair that Tamil Nadu’s Lok Sabha seats were cut as state controlled population growth: Madras HC

[Trichromatic]

Quote

The Madras High Court has observed that it was “unreasonable and unfair” that the political representation of Tamil Nadu in the Lok Sabha was brought down in 1967 because the state reduced its population by carrying out family planning measures, reported Bar and Bench on Saturday.

“Can successful implementation of family planning programmes of the central government be put against the people of the state by taking away political representations in the Parliament,” a bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and B Pugalendhi said in an order passed on August 17.

 

https://scroll.in/latest/1003452/unfair-that-tamil-nadus-lok-sabha-seats-were-cut-as-state-controlled-population-growth-madras-hc

[sandeep]

lmao, wtf is this guy on.

[Singh bling]

Before Hindu muslim conflict we have this problem . Apart from Hindi belt most states have reached replacement or below replacement fertility. This means large number from Hindi belt will go to other states and change demography

[Khota]

That is a real problemfor some states and no need to laugh atthat.

[rkt.india]

That's why seats should be decided based on area than population.

[Vivek92]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

That's why seats should be decided based on area than population.

Completely agree, can't get penalised for doing something right. Population growth need to be tackled at both state and central level and tangible benefits need to provided when they meet set targets 

[rangeelaraja]

If the number of LS seats were based on each state’s  total GDP, it would change the politics in India for the better. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by rangeelaraja

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, Vivek92 said:

Completely agree, can't get penalised for doing something right. Population growth need to be tackled at both state and central level and tangible benefits need to provided when they meet set targets 

Rajasthan is not densely populated and probably the second largest states in area. It getting more LS seats than other states is also not fair

[urbestfriend]

Courts have to be reasonable, delivering a  judgement for an issue that happened 54 years back is laughable. Other southern states may have faced loss of seats, but you can't deliver justice after 2 generations have been passed.

[Trichromatic]

10 minutes ago, urbestfriend said:

Courts have to be reasonable, delivering a  judgement for an issue that happened 54 years back is laughable. Other southern states may have faced loss of seats, but you can't deliver justice after 2 generations have been passed.

 

That's an observation, not a judgement and observations will be made on historical events.

 

Case which court is hearing is not about something which has passed 2 generations. It was current case seeking dereversation of Tenkasi parliamentary constituency.

 

Tamil Nadu had 41 lok sabha seats and it was reduced to 39. That's why plea was filed to seek deservation. Judgement was that court the plea. Observation was that TN lost political representation due to better population control.

 

It's notjust something which happened 54 years and no longer exists.

[Vivek92]

4 hours ago, rangeelaraja said:

If the number of LS seats were based on each state’s  total GDP, it would change the politics in India for the better. 

This needs to be the way forward.

[Khota]

Larger states will have more total GDP. Is that fair to more productive smaller states?

[rkt.india]

9 hours ago, Vivek92 said:

This needs to be the way forward.

No that brings discrepancy.

[rkt.india]

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Rajasthan is not densely populated and probably the second largest states in area. It getting more LS seats than other states is also not fair

Rajasthan has just 25 LS seats in comparison to 39 of TN which is a smaller state. Rajasthan is the largest state in India by area. Rajasthan has more population than TN. So, it seems Rajasthan has suffered more injustice than TN.

Edited August 24, 2021 by rkt.india

[sandeep]

18 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Rajasthan has just 25 LS seats in comparison to 39 of TN which is a smaller state. Rajasthan is the largest state in India by area. Rajasthan has more population than TN. So, it seems Rajasthan has suffered more injustice than TN.

why let facts get in the way of a good whine.

[Trichromatic]

22 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Rajasthan has just 25 LS seats in comparison to 39 of TN which is a smaller state. Rajasthan is the largest state in India by area. Rajasthan has more population than TN. So, it seems Rajasthan has suffered more injustice than TN.

 

These seats were decided in 1967 (?) when Rajasthan had population of 2.5 crores and Tamil Nadu 4+ crores. So 25 seats for Raj, 39 for TN. 

 

Now both states have 7+ crores population. So they might get equal number of seats bases on population. 

[Yoda-esque]

That's why seats should be decided based on area than population.

Perhaps area + population + gdp?

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, Yoda-esque said:

On 8/23/2021 at 5:23 PM, rkt.india said:

That's why seats should be decided based on area than population.

Perhaps area + population + gdp?

So states with lesser GDP get more MPs?

[Gollum]

On 8/23/2021 at 5:23 PM, rkt.india said:

That's why seats should be decided based on area than population.

Ladakh's area is more than U'khand, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala. Population is what 200k?

[Gollum]

No extra LS seats but states that have controlled their TFR better must be rewarded in some manner. Maybe a higher cut from Finance Commission? As such Western and Southern states (plus Delhi, Haryana) are robbed to cover for some of the other states. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Gollum