Distribution of seats between and within States and Union Territories after every census was a Constitutional mandate. However, constituencies have been redrawn only four times so far – after the 1951, 1961, 1971, and 2001 censuses. The last of these was also a partial effort – not affecting the number of Lok Sabha seats for each State, but only redrawing boundaries of constituencies within the States. This was due to a freeze imposed by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. As the Parliament considers removing the freeze, it is important to understand the proposal, review the principles of delimitation, and evaluate the effort against those principles.
The Proposal
Parliament considered increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and advancing the implementation of reservations for women in legislatures. The proposal increased the sanctioned strength of the Lok Sabha from 550 to 850 members.
The initial impression, reflected in earlier positions of the Council of Ministers, was that inter-State seat allocation would continue on the basis of the 1971 Census, while intra-State delimitation would rely on the 2011 Census. However, the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, signalled a shift towards a pro rata framework. It did not freeze State-wise seat shares; instead, it redefined “population” as that recorded in any Census determined by law. This rendered the population base indeterminate in principle; it could be 1951, 1881, or another Census altogether.
The Delimitation Bill, 2026, referred to readjustment based on the “latest published Census figures,” suggesting reliance on the 2011 Census despite the ongoing 2027 exercise. Earlier, the use of the last Census was a constitutional requirement; the amendment made it contingent on Parliament’s choice. The Bill also marked a structural shift by converting delimitation from a mandatory to a discretionary exercise, removing the mandate for readjustment under Articles 82 and 170, leaving delimitation to be undertaken only when Parliament so provides by law.
Now that the bill has failed, the existing framework would require delimitation to be conducted on the basis of the next published Census.
Principles of Delimitation
Delimitation is anchored in three core principles, as reflected in Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution of India.
1. Effective Representation
A representative must meaningfully engage with constituents. This requires a reasonable representative-to-population ratio.
An increase in the number of representatives reduces the average population per representative. Based on projected population figures for 2026 (derived from the 2011 Census), the national average population per Member of Parliament is approximately 26.94 lakh, with State averages ranging from about 70 thousand (Lakshadweep) to around 33.45 lakh (Rajasthan).
A similar pattern is observed in State Legislatures. The national average population per MLA is approximately 2.18 lakh, with State averages ranging from about 0.21 lakh (Sikkim) to about 5.73 lakh (Uttar Pradesh). Expansion would partially reduce this burden, though disparities remain substantial, particularly in large States such as Uttar Pradesh, where the 500-member cap under Article 170 continues to apply.
Had the bill passed, the national average would have declined to approximately 13 lakh per MP in 2026, based on projections, with State averages ranging from about 70 thousand (Lakshadweep) to around 18.12 lakh (Uttar Pradesh). While this would have been significantly higher than earlier periods, such as around 7.3 lakh per MP in 1957, it represented an improvement in representatives’ capacity to engage with constituents.
2. Equality of Votes
Second, the principle of equality requires that each vote carry equal weight and equal value. This implies that constituencies should, as far as practicable, have similar populations.
Variation in population per representative across States has increased over time. The standard deviation has risen from about 3.79 lakh in 1971 to approximately 8.13 lakh in recent estimates. The proposed expansion would have reduced this to around 4.9 lakh. This indicates some movement towards reducing disparities.
Under the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, seat allocation would have been carried out on a pro rata basis using population figures from a Census determined by Parliament by law. The definition of “population” is no longer tied to a fixed Census, which introduced uncertainty in the population base used for representation.
The Delimitation Bill, 2026, refers to the “latest published Census figures,” suggesting reliance on the 2011 Census, despite the 2027 Census process underway. As a result, while intra-State equality might have improved through increased seats, inter-State equality remains contingent on a 15-year-old Census and would not have fully reflected current population distributions.
3. Manageability
Third, constituencies must be administratively manageable. A representative serves both people and territory, which requires attention to geography, density, and boundaries, which depend on the actual delimitation exercise. Since these details were not yet determined, this principle cannot be fully assessed at this stage.
Conclusion
The proposed delimitation changes offered limited gains in representation by reducing the population burden per representative and moderating intra-State disparities. However, by shifting to a pro rata framework based on a Census determined by Parliament and making delimitation discretionary rather than mandatory, the amendment introduced uncertainty and weakened the guarantee of periodic readjustment. The continued reliance on the 2011 Census, despite the ongoing 2027 exercise, further constrained alignment with current demographics.
