Has the question of delimitation been resolved?

The last time Lok Sabha constituencies were delimited all over India on the basis of 1971 population. Why did we decide that we should wait until 2026 before taking the new population figures into account?

OP Rawat: After the 1976 delimitation, which was based on 1971 population data, it was decided to stop delimitation or redistribution of seats in different states on the basis of decennial population data for 25 years. This was due to the imbalance in population growth between the northern and southern states. Delimitation happened in 2002, but the issue was felt even after that [of population] Will continue and there will be no delimitation till the first census after 2026. Estimates suggest that northern states such as Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have a decadal growth rate of 12% to 15%, while in southern states, the decadal growth rate is between 6% and 10%. No leveling took place from 2011 to 2021. It is believed that this leveling will happen after 2026.

In 2002, there was no redistribution of Lok Sabha seats across state boundaries. The boundaries of Lok Sabha constituencies were redrawn, but the total number of seats in particular states did not go up or down. So, is the current distribution of Lok Sabha seats as per the 1976 delimitation?

OP Rawat: Yes. Also, the number of seats is specified by the Parliament. And whenever there was a state reorganization, it was specified in the State Reorganization Act. For example, when Uttarakhand was formed, it was specified that it would have 22 assembly seats. [the region] If Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand had an assembly with 70 seats. I think whenever the next delimitation happens, the Parliament will decide what will be the total number of Lok Sabha seats and various Vidhan Sabha seats. The distribution among the states will be decided by the Delimitation Commission, which will be appointed under the Delimitation Commission Act. Parliament instructs him to work out a formula for the reallocation of seats.

So, even though the basic requirement is that representation should be in proportion to the population – one person, one vote, one value, Parliament has the flexibility to fine-tune the principle to ensure that, in some cases, relatively few people represent Parliament. Will continue to elect members?

OP Rawat: Yes. For example, in Tripura or Manipur, they gave two seats even though the population was not sufficient. Lakshadweep has one seat for about 68,000 people. Such extraordinary arrangements can always be made by the Parliament. But we have universal suffrage – one man, one vote. That principle cannot be completely abolished.

Some calculations suggest that if the Lok Sabha seats were redistributed according to the current distribution of population, the northern states could have an increase of 32 seats, while the southern states could have a decrease of 24 seats. That scenario may not be significantly changed by parliamentary intervention, which may be able to deal with specific cases such as isolated geographical areas or hilly areas or special categories of communities. is that correct?

OP Rawat: Parliament may specify that no state shall lose its present number of seats.

Professor Mishra, how do you see the regional variations in population trends?

Uday Shankar Mishra: This is the same question we are trying to address in the context of delimitation that echoed even when I was involved in the Finance Commission’s exercise of allocating population burdens on population. Earlier, the decisions of the Finance Commission were based on the 1971 census. But in the recent exercise of the Finance Commission, it was moved to the 2011 Census data. Regional variations in population counts certainly show demographic divergence. Even today we are violating the principle of ‘one man, one vote, one value’. The Parliament has the liberty to say that there cannot be any reduction in seats anywhere. Even if the number of seats increases overall, the ratio between the parliamentary representation of northern states and southern states may increase. Therefore, the Parliament should evolve a certain standard proportionality on the basis of population, so that deviations can always be taken into account. We’re going to do the delimitation exercise, but can’t we have a certain proportionality in the first place? And then allow deviations based on specific circumstances? If the quantity increases and if we keep proportionality constant, the game will surely become unequal.

Read this also | The outcome of the delimitation does not require any political forecast

If we think of a solution to this particular problem, we cannot focus on counting alone. The decision on which count of proportionality should be maintained is to be applied. There must also be a minimum standard of counting. When it comes to representation, the attribute of representation is more important, not the count. There are numbers that are large and numbers that are small. Can we ignore the voices of marginalized communities in the process? For example, Aboriginal people, elders? Therefore, a standard proportionality criterion should be negotiated in such a way that we do not ignore marginalized voices when it comes to representation in terms of allocation of seats. Representation is not just representation per se, it includes a wider adjustment of diverse characteristics. And given India’s diversity and unusual concentrations of certain groups in the population, this is important to note.

That is why we have a whole set of group rights which are part of the organizing principles of India. But the starting point is to divide the total population by the total number of our constituencies to form a representative government?

OP Rawat: Actually, according to the book it is only about counting the employees. There may be specific arrangements to give representation to particular areas, to make those groups visible. These arrangements will be political because this is a complex matter. This politics, Parliament will decide. So, they will bargain to come up with some formula. But they will never try to bring in the colonial concept of different categories of voters.

Will this flexibility be broad enough to accommodate concerns that the Southern states will be overwhelmed by the growing political importance of the Northern states?

OP Rawat: I think we are being sidelined on this issue, whereas Parliament and the political process will look at it in totality. What if some regions get more seats in the Parliament? What is fear? These are important issues to deal with. I have found that whether in the South or the North, voters are mature and show two different preferences at the same polling booth – one for the State and the other for the Centre. We should trust people. They will definitely come out of it when the issue comes to the fore.

Professor Mishra, what impact do you see migration having on electoral politics? For example, migrants from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have become important political constituencies in Delhi and Mumbai.

Uday Shankar Mishra: The patterns we examine indicate that there has been an increase in mobility over the past decade. There are two or three very distinct flows of migration: from east to south; and from north to west. Migrants from the East are replacing the workforce in the southern states. In political terms, the agency of migrants is going to play a very important role in the outcome. For example, in Kerala we are already seeing candidates raising the issues and concerns of migrants.