·The Hindu·15 marks·250–350 words

Discuss the constitutional provisions governing delimitation of constituencies in India and the political economy of freezing versus unfreezing seat numbers.

In this answer
  1. Constitutional framework
  2. The case for continuing the freeze
  3. The case for unfreezing

Delimitation — the readjustment of seat allocation and constituency boundaries after each census under Article 82 — has returned to the centre of debate with the Delimitation Bill, 2026 proposing to raise Lok Sabha strength to 850 [2]. It is as much a question of federal bargaining as of constitutional text.

Constitutional framework

  • Article 81 fixes the composition of the Lok Sabha and requires seats to be allotted to States in proportion to population; Article 170 governs Assembly strength.
  • Article 82 mandates readjustment after every census, by a Delimitation Commission constituted under a law of Parliament; Article 329(a) bars courts from questioning delimitation laws and orders.
  • Articles 330 and 332 provide reservation of seats for SCs and STs, now supplemented by the 106th Amendment, 2023, which reserves one-third of seats for women effective after the first census following its commencement and the delimitation based on it [3].
  • The 42nd Amendment (1976) froze allocation at 1971 levels; the 84th Amendment (2001) extended the freeze on State-wise allocation until the first census after 2026, permitting only boundary readjustment [1].

The case for continuing the freeze

  • It protects States that succeeded in population control, whose share of national population has fallen; the Congress has sought a 25-year freeze at 543 seats and existing State shares, with women's quota from 2029 [4].
  • It sustains federal trust, already strained by fiscal devolution disputes.

The case for unfreezing

  • Prolonged freeze causes malapportionment — widely unequal voter-to-MP ratios diluting "one person, one vote".
  • A larger House (815 State + 35 UT seats) means smaller constituencies and closer representation, and would unlock women's reservation without waiting for the 2027 Census [2].

Both positions defend legitimate constitutional values — equality of the vote and federal equity. A negotiated path — an all-party consultative process, phased or capped reallocation so no State loses absolute seats, and compensating strength for smaller States in the Rajya Sabha — would allow representation to be updated while preserving cooperative federalism.

Sources

  1. 1The Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 — Election Commission of Indiafreeze on State-wise seat allocation until the first census after 2026
  2. 2The Delimitation Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Researchproposed increase to 850 seats (815 States + 35 UTs) and decoupling of women's reservation from the 2027 Census
  3. 3Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 (Constitution 128th Amendment Bill) — PRS Legislative Researchone-third reservation for women contingent on census and delimitation
  4. 4Share delimitation plan, freeze existing LS strength: Kharge — The Hindudemand for a 25-year freeze at 543 seats and women's quota from 2029

More from this note