The delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies based on population alone risks penalising states that achieved better demographic transition. Critically examine the multi-factor approach recommended by the EAC-PM and its implications for federal equity.

Q. The delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies based on population alone risks penalising states that achieved better demographic transition. Critically examine the multi-factor approach recommended by the EAC-PM and its implications for federal equity. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Articles 81 and 82 require Lok Sabha seats to be allocated in proportion to population, but the 42nd and 84th Amendments froze state-wise shares at 1971 levels precisely to avoid penalising states that curbed population growth. The EAC-PM's 2026 working paper seeks a middle path between arithmetic proportionality and federal fairness.

The population-only problem - The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposed restoring proportional allocation on the 2011 Census, raising the ceiling from 550 to 850 seats [1]. - Under that model Uttar Pradesh gains nine seats while Tamil Nadu loses seven — demographic success translating into political loss [2].

The EAC-PM's multi-factor alternative - Expands the House from 543 to 824 by targeted splitting of 170 constituencies (59 two-way, 111 three-way), not uniform reapportionment [3]. - Criteria include voter turnout, constituency area, SC/ST population, linguistic diversity and social polarisation, with a broadly uniform baseline expansion that preserves each large state's existing seat share [3].

Merits - Protects federal equity: Kerala 20→30, Tamil Nadu 39→59 alongside UP 80→120, leaving the North–South balance undisturbed [3]. - Smaller constituencies improve the MP–voter ratio and deepen representation; small States/UTs gain proportionately. - Enables the dormant 106th Amendment women's reservation, operative only after fresh delimitation [2].

Limitations - EAC-PM is advisory, not the statutory Delimitation Commission headed by a Supreme Court judge [2]. - Criteria like "social polarisation" lack statutory definition, inviting administrative discretion and litigation pressure despite non-justiciability. - Freezing shares dilutes the one-person-one-vote principle; three-way splits concentrated in northern states sharpen political optics. - The April 2026 Bills were negated within a day, confirming absent consensus [1].

Federal equity demands that neither demographic discipline nor democratic proportionality be sacrificed. The way forward lies in statutorily codifying transparent multi-factor criteria, entrusting them to a duly constituted Delimitation Commission, and building consensus through the Inter-State Council — honouring the Constitution's vision of India as a Union of States.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — seat ceiling raised from 550 to 850; Parliament's discretion over census; Bill negated in April 2026 2. The Delimitation Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — 2011 Census basis; UP gains nine and Tamil Nadu loses seven seats; Delimitation Commission headed by a Supreme Court judge; women's reservation linkage 3. EAC-PM, Delimitation Working Paper, 2026 — 824-seat model, 170 targeted splits (59 two-way, 111 three-way), multi-factor criteria, state-wise seat projections