Discuss the constitutional basis of delimitation in India and trace the evolution of the seat-freeze since the 42nd Amendment.

Delimitation — the readjustment of seat numbers among States and of constituency boundaries within them — flows from Article 82, which mandates readjustment after every census [1]. Yet since 1976 Parliament has repeatedly suspended this population-based logic, converting a routine exercise into a question of federal equity.

Constitutional basis

• Article 81(2) requires the seats-to-population ratio to be the same for all States "as far as practicable", embodying the principle of one citizen–one vote–one value; Article 82 directs readjustment "upon the completion of each census" by such authority and in such manner as Parliament by law determines [1].
• Article 170 applies the same scheme to State Legislative Assemblies; Articles 330 and 332 require parallel readjustment of SC/ST reserved seats [1].
• The Delimitation Commission is therefore a statutory, not constitutional, body — constituted under Acts of 1952, 1962, 1972 and 2002; its orders have the force of law and cannot be questioned before any court [2].

Evolution of the seat-freeze

• 42nd Amendment, 1976: froze State-wise seat allocation at 1971 census levels until the 2001 census, so that States adopting family-planning norms were not penalised with reduced representation [3].
• 84th Amendment (2001): extended the inter-State freeze to the first census after 2026, while permitting intra-State boundary revision; this was executed by the Commission under the Delimitation Act, 2002 using 2001 census figures [4][2].
• 2026: three Bills introduced in Lok Sabha on 16 April 2026 — the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill would have empowered Parliament to fix the timing and census base and raised the House's maximum strength from 550 to 850, with the Delimitation Bill, 2026 applying the 2011 census. The Amendment Bill was negatived, rendering the others infructuous [5].

Thus delimitation embodies a deliberate constitutional trade-off between representational equality and federal fairness. A consensual path — expanding the House without diminishing any State's existing share, alongside strengthened fiscal devolution — would honour Article 81(2) while preserving cooperative federalism.