Delimitation discussion

[coffee_rules]

The BJP government tried to sneak in an amendment to article 131 to increase the number of seats in LS with the delimitation that is bound to happen after 2026.

 

The current Lok Sabha strength is 543 based on a delimitation based on 1971 census. Since then, no Govt has intended to increase the number of seats as per the current population. 
 

The constitution provides a means of setting the number of seats based on population. In 2001, the BJP Govt had to increase the seats, they didn’t have the numbers, so they chose to freeze the LS and RS strength for another 25 years. It is due this year and obviously BJP wants to implement delimitation. 
 

They are proposing the compromise solution of an addition of 50% to each state on current strength without taking population into the equation. That was the best deal for southern states to maintain the balance in the new strength. They have rejected it for some reason 

 

After the 2026 census is published in 2027, any increase in number of seats is done by amendment to the constitution article 84, which needs a simple majority. So BJP would not even like to offer the 50% formula then and stick to population equation.  
 

ideally, any discussion on this needs a compromise on both sides. States were divided based on language and culture and some ended up having bigger population than others. So naturally bigger states had a major role in the government formation. Ideally, it should be based on population because each MP constituency has different sizes even now. Malkajguri in Telangana Hyderabad has close to 40 lakh population, while.Lakshadeep has 50,000. Kerala has the least sized constituencies with an average of 1.6 million per constituency while Rajasthan has 2.4 million. All this is based on 2011 population. It will be even wider in 2026 Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which were unfairly sized higher in 1971 lose the advantage now. TN with 39 seats has lesser population than say Karnataka, which has 28. Comparing Haryana and Kerala also with the same. I wonder how they got higher number of seats back in 1971.

 

Urban areas have more population than rural areas , even in southern states.  so the Sudan states crying about getting penalized for better population control is absurd. 

 

 

 

[randomGuy]

I am against giving extra seats to states where many people exhibit hatred for Hindi. Or states which have seperatist tendencies.

 

Otherwise thodi seatein kam jyada chalta hai, i think there can't be objectively a best way...maybe a combination of population and gdp per capita.

Edited April 22 by randomGuy

[coffee_rules]

58 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

I am against giving extra seats to states where many people exhibit hatred for Hindi. Or states which have seperatist tendencies.

 

Otherwise thodi seatein kam jyada chalta hai, i think there can't be objectively a best way...maybe a combination of population and gdp per capita.

For some states, geography was one of the reasons it had better economic opportunities. States with coastal regions tend to have better GS DP. If an industry in Tamil Nadu is getting raw materials from Bihar, how do you attribute the economic activity only to Tamil Nadu. MP is about administration and all constituencies should have equal weightage for the number of people it represents. Some seats are heavily weighted than others. Population has to be the only means to decide that.

[randomGuy]

21 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

For some states, geography was one of the reasons it had better economic opportunities. States with coastal regions tend to have better GS DP. If an industry in Tamil Nadu is getting raw materials from Bihar, how do you attribute the economic activity only to Tamil Nadu. MP is about administration and all constituencies should have equal weightage for the number of people it represents. Some seats are heavily weighted than others. Population has to be the only means to decide that.

Right. The counter argument is that some states controlled tfr and others werent able to as much. Why should these be penalized for controlling tfr? That's a valid point imo. That's another matter that this point isn't going to hold in future because their tfr has now gone well under replacement rate (1.3 children per woman for TN)

 

otherwise also, Hindi is going to dominate TN. right now, it may be 5% of India's population. But in recent annual births data arnd 3-3.5%. (8 lac TN births out of 2.4 crore all India births) and non Tamils moving into TN and Tamils also learning Hindi. Hindi hatred Will lessen as everybody speaks Hindi in Chennai like in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore...

Edited April 22 by randomGuy

[rkt.india]

Useless exercise. 

[kepler37b]

Abolish democrazy. Delimitation baad me jaayee..

[Mariyam]

On 4/23/2026 at 2:06 PM, kepler37b said:

Abolish democrazy. Delimitation baad me jaayee..

What is your alternative?

[kepler37b]

18 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

What is your alternative?

Remove voting rights to folks that receive welfare money.

[coffee_rules]

On 4/23/2026 at 3:14 AM, rkt.india said:

Useless exercise. 

Can you elaborate? Equal fair representation of elected candidates is vital for democracy.

[coffee_rules]

On 4/22/2026 at 12:59 PM, randomGuy said:

Right. The counter argument is that some states controlled tfr and others werent able to as much. Why should these be penalized for controlling tfr? That's a valid point imo. That's another matter that this point isn't going to hold in future because their tfr has now gone well under replacement rate (1.3 children per woman for TN)

 

otherwise also, Hindi is going to dominate TN. right now, it may be 5% of India's population. But in recent annual births data arnd 3-3.5%. (8 lac TN births out of 2.4 crore all India births) and non Tamils moving into TN and Tamils also learning Hindi. Hindi hatred Will lessen as everybody speaks Hindi in Chennai like in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore...

I find this gripe of Southern states that they controlled population growth as if they handed out contraceptives to people at the corner of the street. It was always about education. The more educated people were, they tend to have less number of kids. It also explains why the TFR of Hindus in UP is less than TFR of Muslims in Keralam.

 

TN and Keralam had been allocated higher number of seats to begin with in 1971. They have no reason to do RR. Economic indices to grant proportional seats is unfair because not all states were given the same preference for setting up industries and educational institutions since 1947. North had partition and the threat of Pakistan and China attacking. So, Southern states were preferred. It was a decision made putting the country first.
 

Smaller states crying about bigger states having more seats is such a stupid argument. india did not start with equal number of sized states, so bigger states had bigger role in the government formation. These southern states are acting as though they sprung up all on their own yesterday to cry about unfair distribution.

[randomGuy]

31 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I find this gripe of Southern states that they controlled population growth as if they handed out contraceptives to people at the corner of the street. It was always about education. The more educated people were, they tend to have less number of kids. It also explains why the TFR of Hindus in UP is less than TFR of Muslims in Keralam.

 

TN and Keralam had been allocated higher number of seats to begin with in 1971. They have no reason to do RR. Economic indices to grant proportional seats is unfair because not all states were given the same preference for setting up industries and educational institutions since 1947. North had partition and the threat of Pakistan and China attacking. So, Southern states were preferred. It was a decision made putting the country first.
 

Smaller states crying about bigger states having more seats is such a stupid argument. india did not start with equal number of sized states, so bigger states had bigger role in the government formation. These southern states are acting as though they sprung up all on their own yesterday to cry about unfair distribution.

 

Even if I were a south indian , i would have infact favoured more than proportional seats for the north because of future population projection. But some south indian people are making a political issue out of it giving the reason of population control, which I also find not unreasonable.

 

But agreed with your points that south already had more than proportional seats even in the past. And all the rest of your points.

[coffee_rules]

2 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

 

Even if I were a south indian , i would have infact favoured more than proportional seats for the north because of future population projection. But some south indian people are making a political issue out of it giving the reason of population control, which I also find not unreasonable.

 

But agreed with your points that south already had more than proportional seats even in the past. And all the rest of your points.

With more education, TFR of North will match the south, it already matches in Hindus. With more migration to urban areas and to where  opportunities lie this population issue that southern states are doing RR will be a non-issue in the future. Every Indian city will be overpopulated and all states will even out with more urbanization as people move to where jobs are. 

[G_B_]

See either way if you have gdp based revision bjp gains in west haryana and kar and telangana. If its only pop based it will gain in up bihar wb etc

 

Either way tn and kerala stand diminished.

[Mariyam]

7 hours ago, kepler37b said:

Remove voting rights to folks that receive welfare money.

For one, what has this to do with delimitation?

 

If you go down the rabbit hole you suggest, what about IIT students? Their education is highly subsidised by the State. That is soft welfare. They shouldn’t vote either during their College years. Ditto AIIMS students and so on.

 

Neither should farmers. Pay no tax and get loads of freebies for fertilisers/storage/electricity.

 

Who will vote then? Only Urban white collar workers?

[Mariyam]

TN should have more representation. They be smart and are the state of maximum GMs. Just for that they should get 10 extra seats. 
 

UP has zero GMs so UP should lose 10 seats.

[rkt.india]

On 4/24/2026 at 6:55 PM, coffee_rules said:

Can you elaborate? Equal fair representation of elected candidates is vital for democracy.

It should be based on area, not population.

[Nikhil_cric]

On 4/24/2026 at 7:06 PM, coffee_rules said:

I find this gripe of Southern states that they controlled population growth as if they handed out contraceptives to people at the corner of the street. It was always about education. The more educated people were, they tend to have less number of kids. It also explains why the TFR of Hindus in UP is less than TFR of Muslims in Keralam.

 

TN and Keralam had been allocated higher number of seats to begin with in 1971. They have no reason to do RR. Economic indices to grant proportional seats is unfair because not all states were given the same preference for setting up industries and educational institutions since 1947. North had partition and the threat of Pakistan and China attacking. So, Southern states were preferred. It was a decision made putting the country first.
 

Smaller states crying about bigger states having more seats is such a stupid argument. india did not start with equal number of sized states, so bigger states had bigger role in the government formation. These southern states are acting as though they sprung up all on their own yesterday to cry about unfair distribution.

TFR of Hindus in UP is not lower than TFR of Muslims in Kerala 

[coffee_rules]

5 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

TFR of Hindus in UP is not lower than TFR of Muslims in Kerala 

I stand corrected. I heard it in some podcast and didn’t check. But the bigger point is TFR reduction is directly related to education of women all over the world. The more educated women are, they will have less cell number of kids.
 

Even comparing the census of 1951 till 1971 when the literacy rates in South India were not as good as now, TFR was pretty high even in South India. It’s only that after 1971 till 2011, when the education was widespread more than in North India, the TFR drop significantly below to in South India.

 

Even in North india in recent times the TFR is going down even among Muslims. So, using this population issue to question the delimitation numbers is futile. Migration happens even within states people move from rural to urban areas. So, bangalore had the ten MLAs in one stage has 30 MLAs  based on population increase. So districts like Gulburgav might complain that they have lesser number of seats because bangalore has more population. How does that logic sound for these people doing RR on population politics? 

Edited May 1 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

On 4/27/2026 at 8:18 AM, rkt.india said:

It should be based on area, not population.

Large part of areas in some states are not populated. Rajasthan the biggest state now has forest land, desert, and mountainous regions where people don’t recide. It should not be based on area, but it should be on population density.

[Lord]

We need less ministers not more. If the logic is increasing population, then apply it across the board in reservation in all jobs so that GC's have enough seats to fight for.with

 

Dunno why it needed 2/3 majority though.

 

And BJP passing it off as women's reservation bill with PM crying about it is just misinformation. Women's reservation bill is already passed