As India approaches the constitutional expiry of the freeze on the delimitation of parliamentary seats in 2026, a deep unease is growing among states, especially those in the south. The anxiety is not only about the potential loss of political representation but also about the principles on which such exercises are carried out — principles that many argue are outdated and overly reliant on raw population counts. In this context, scholars and policymakers are increasingly advocating for a demographic outlook that goes beyond mere headcounts and considers the quality and characteristics of population dynamics.

The Delimitation Dilemma

Delimitation — the process of redrawing boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies to reflect population changes — has historically followed the logic that more people should translate into more representatives. Between 1951 and 1971, this principle drove the increase in Lok Sabha seats from 489 to 543. However, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) froze this number until 2000, which was later extended to 2026 by the 84th Amendment in 2001, in recognition of the demographic disparities that were beginning to emerge.

In 1951, each Lok Sabha seat represented an average of 7.3 lakh people. By 1971, that number had risen to 10.1 lakh, and by 2026, it is projected to be around 20 lakh per seat. If seats were allocated strictly by population size today, peninsular states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka — which have successfully reduced fertility rates — would lose seats, while states with high population growth, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, would gain.

This has raised fears of a political penalty for demographic success, potentially undermining the federal character of Indian democracy.

A Case for Demographic Performance

The 15th Finance Commission was the first to respond to this emerging crisis. While moving to use 2011 Census data instead of 1971 for financial devolution calculations, it introduced a balancing mechanism by rewarding demographic performance, such as reductions in fertility rates and improved health indicators. This approach recognized that states which had implemented population control policies should not be disadvantaged in resource allocation.

The same logic now needs to be extended to political representation, say experts. Demographer S. Irudaya Rajan, in a recent editorial, argued that population alone cannot be the sole yardstick for delimitation or devolution. Instead, a more nuanced approach that includes population density, composition, and performance is needed.

The Need for a ‘Demographic Outlook’

Rajan critiques what he terms the “per capita hangover” — a simplistic use of population numbers in policy calculations that treats unequal regions equally. He argues that the demographic composition — including factors like age, gender, literacy, fertility rates, and economic participation — must be factored into decisions on representation and allocation.

For instance, north-eastern states already enjoy a lower population-per-seat ratio due to geographical and historical considerations. A similar flexibility could be extended to demographically advanced southern states using population density or human development indices as supplementary criteria.

Moreover, raw population counts do not account for social complexities like caste and gender-based reservations, where representation needs are intricately linked to the quality of population rather than its quantity. Rajan calls for a system that sees population as a composite entity — with rights, needs, and entitlements, not just heads to be counted.

Political Stakes and the Road Ahead

The current debate is deeply political. States that stand to lose in a population-based redistribution — especially those governed by regional parties — are pushing back against any move that penalizes them for good governance and population control. Meanwhile, states with rising populations are demanding fairer representation in line with their growing demographic weight.

The Union government has so far maintained that any future delimitation exercise will be carried out in accordance with the Constitution, but it has not clarified whether demographic performance will be considered. As India nears the 2026 deadline, this ambiguity must be addressed, or it risks triggering a full-blown federal confrontation.

Beyond Delimitation: Rethinking Federalism

The debate around delimitation is a reflection of broader tensions in Indian federalism. As India becomes more economically and socially diverse, a one-size-fits-all approach to representation and fiscal policy no longer works. Just as the Finance Commissions have evolved to incorporate new variables like climate resilience and demographic transitions, the Delimitation Commission must also be guided by modern demographic principles.

Conclusion

India’s demographic transition — uneven but real — demands a rethinking of governance, representation, and fiscal devolution. Using raw population counts as the sole basis for delimitation risks undermining the very foundation of equitable federalism. A demographic outlook that values population quality, not just quantity, is essential to maintain harmony and fairness in the Union.

The time to think beyond population count is now.