Delimitation and Degressive Proportionality (Completely Explained)

Context

Southern States that invested early in health, education, and population control now face political and fiscal disadvantages. Population-based redistribution and upcoming delimitation threaten to reduce their relative representation, prompting calls for a fairer principle of representation.

Q1. Why are southern States facing disadvantages today?

1. Reduced Fiscal Transfers
   1. The Finance Commission of India assigns nearly 50% weight to population in tax devolution.
   2. Lower population growth has reduced allocations to southern States.
2. Political Representation Risk
   1. While the proportion of seats may remain similar, the absolute gap in Lok Sabha seats between northern and southern States is likely to widen.
   2. This would reduce the south’s relative political influence.
3. Rewarding High Population Growth
   1. States with higher population growth gain more MPs.
   2. States that achieved population stabilisation face relative loss.

Q2. How does the Census and Delimitation timeline affect this issue?

1. The Census, due in 2021, was delayed and is now expected by October 2028.
2. After the Census, a Delimitation Commission will be formed.
3. Its recommendations will apply before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.
4. This timing makes the outcome politically irreversible for a long period.

Q3. Why is delimitation particularly sensitive for southern States?

1. Most population growth since 1991 has occurred in northern States.
2. Southern States achieved lower fertility through public investment.
3. Delimitation based purely on population would penalise good governance outcomes.
4. This raises a federal fairness concern, not merely a regional grievance.

Q4. What are the possible solutions to ensure fair representation?

1. Increase Lok Sabha seats using the 2011 Census
   1. No State would lose existing seats.
   2. Lok Sabha strength could rise to around 866.
   3. Minimises disruption but still rewards high population growth.
2. Equal representation of States in the Rajya Sabha
   1. Each State could receive an equal number of seats.
   2. Similar to the US Senate model.
   3. Would strengthen federal balance but faces political resistance.
3. Expand State Legislative Assemblies
   1. Equalise representatives per population at the State level.
   2. Improves grassroots representation in populous States.
   3. Does not directly address Lok Sabha imbalance.
4. Adopt a mixed formula for Lok Sabha seats
   1. Allocate 60% of seats by population.
   2. Allocate 40% based on population control performance.
   3. Rewards States that reduced fertility.
   4. Offers a common negotiating platform for the south.

Q5. What constitutional precedent supports the southern States’ case?

1. The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act froze Lok Sabha seats until after 2026.
2. Its objective was to motivate population stabilisation.
3. This establishes that representation need not be based on population alone.
4. It supports balancing equity with responsibility.

Q6. What is the principle of Degressive Proportionality?

1. It is used for representation in the European Parliament.
2. Larger entities get more seats, but fewer seats per person.
3. Smaller entities get fewer seats, but greater per-capita representation.
4. It prevents domination by populous entities while preserving democracy.
5. It is a compromise between:
   1. Pure population proportionality
   2. Equal representation of States

Q7. How do Finance Commissions already use similar logic?

1. Income Distance
   1. Rewards poorer States.
2. Population Criteria
   1. Uses both 1971 and 2011 Census figures.
   2. Balances current needs with population control incentives.
3. Demographic Performance
   1. Rewards States that reduced fertility.
4. Tax Effort
   1. Encourages efficient revenue mobilisation.

If such a multidimensional approach is valid for finance, the same logic can apply to political representation.

Q8. Why must southern States act collectively now?

1. Delimitation decisions are approaching and irreversible.
2. Individual State efforts will lack impact.
3. A united stance improves bargaining power.
4. Degressive proportionality offers a constitutionally defensible compromise.

Conclusion

Delimitation based purely on population risks penalising States that governed well. By uniting around degressive proportionality, southern States can defend federal fairness, reward demographic responsibility, and preserve balanced representation in India’s democracy.