In the complex tapestry of India’s federal democracy, upcoming delimitation exercises, which are scheduled to follow the long-term census of 2026-2027, emerges as one of the most resulting moments for the practice of franchise by millions of Indian citizens in decades. It combines constitutional mandate with contemporary concerns about representation, electoral reliability, and integrity of the democratic process. Inherent in Article 82 of the Constitution, delimitation was conceived as a periodic repetition of parliamentary and assembly constituencies, based on the decadel population change. The objective was simple yet is fundamental: to ensure proportional representation in Lok Sabha and State Assembly, protecting the constitutionally compulsory reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Nevertheless, since the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976, the freeze on the seat freeze on the seat has increased by 2026 through the 84th amendment – has created intensive representative inequality. The intention that was originally an intention to encourage family planning, almost half a century later, left India with a map of representation that no longer matches its demographic reality.
The freeze was introduced during the emergency period to ensure that states applying population stabilization policies would not be politically denied. This argument, while practical, inadvertently had long -term results. In states like Uttar Pradesh, constituencies now include more than three million voters on an average, while states like Tamil Nadu have an average of less than two million. This means that a voter in Chennai effectively carries out more than one electoral weight in Lucknow, a situation that runs opposite to Article 81 of the Constitution, which increases the equality in the value of every vote. In the July 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court confirmed that no nationwide delimitation could move forward without publication of census data, saving in extraordinary matters such as Jammu and Kashmir. The decision outlined both procedural rigor and the demand for centrality of census for India’s democratic machinery. It underlines the imperative of keeping a timely census.
Therefore, delay in keeping census is not just bureaucracy discomfort, but a structural risk for democracy. Originally scheduled for 2021, the census has been postponed several times, now 2026–2027 with the government is indicated as a possible window. This is the cascading results of this Deferral. This ends frozen representation, refusing states with populated states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the parliamentary voiced its number. It delays the implementation of the 106th constitutional amendment of 2023, which promises one -third reservation for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies, but is accidental on delimitation after the next census. This, in turn, unresolved the demand for a caste census, which the government has linked to the delimitation process. Without accurate caste data, redistribution of constituencies leads to the risk of strengthening hierarchies rather than enabling real social justice. Thus delay in census representative attacks at the core of democracy, freezing India in an old demographic Snapshot and prevents institutions from adopting currently.
The political implications of the delimitation are already being debated fiercely, and the most prominent defect is the north -south division. Estimates suggest that the Lok Sabha can expand between 753 and 848 seats. Uttar Pradesh can grow from its current 80 to 143 seats, while Bihar can grow from 40 to 85. In contrast, the joint representation of the southern states may fall from 26% seats that may be below 20%. For leaders in the south, it forms a demographic punishment for progressive social policies. The fertility rate in Kerala and Tamil Nadu at 1.8 and 1.7, respectively, is the lowest in the country, reflecting decades of investment in public health and education. In contrast, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have a fertility rate of 3.0 and 2.7 respectively, which are much above the replacement level. The fear in the south is that successful family planning will be punished with low parliamentary effects, even these states continue to contribute inconsistently to national revenue. It is complicated by the formulas used by the Finance Commissions for fearing deviations, which often rely on population figures. Leaders in the south argue that they are being asked to give more and get less, an imbalance that eradicates the cooperative spirit of federalism.
However, northern voices argue that the justified representation is the basis of democracy. Vishal constituencies with slim voices, they struggle, deny citizens in the population that they deserve democratic weight. For them, this question is not one of punishing the south, but to correct the long -term underpraction of the north. The government has repeatedly assured both sides that the concerns of all regions will be taken into consideration and security measures will be introduced to prevent any state from feeling marginalized. Nevertheless, these assurances remain widespread and normal, while the underlying stress continues to reduce.
The scope of delimitation also spreads to the state assemblies beyond the Lok Sabha. States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar can see dramatic growth in their assembly constituencies, while Kerala and Tamil Nadu may experience relative stagnation or even cuts in their share. This revival of state assemblies is a significant implication for resource allocation, political bargaining and governance at the state level. The way there is a redistribution of reserved constituencies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes critically, articles are mandatory under 330 and 332. The change and migration of population has changed the distribution of these communities in the states, which means that the old boundaries no longer reflect the current realities. Previous exercises of delimitation have triggered local disputes on which groups benefit or lose from changes in reserved seats, and the same competitions are likely to be spewed in the next round.
The delimitation, if incorrect, bears the risks that extend to the very foundation of Indian federalism beyond the number. For the southern states, low representation could accelerate the feelings of marginalization, while the northern states could see prolonged repression complaints in political demands for greater recognition. The ability to remind the movement around the linguistic state in the 1950s and 1960s exists for unrest, or the polarization visible in the US redistribution battle. Financially, bets are no less serious. The southern states contribute close to 30% of India’s GDP, and their lack of bargaining power can destabilize national resource allocation. Answer: The risks divided into the south endangered India’s ability to act as a harmonious federation, reducing both political harmony and economic development.
Given many complications to address them, there are further methods. A proposal is to expand the Lok Sabha to its maximum possible size, without reducing the current allocation of any state. This will allow under-functional states to get seats, ensuring that others do not experience full loss. Another Rajya Sabha is to improve so that it works more effectively as a counterweight, preserving the voice of small states and regions that will otherwise see their effects thin in the lower house. Such institutional innovations can help balance demographic equity with federal stability.
It is clear that the forward road requires both political will and imaginative reforms. The next delimitation commission should include not only government representatives but also the opposition, civil society and regional voices. Its functioning should be transparent, with obvious guidelines on how the constituencies are drawn and reserved seats are allocated. The electoral rolls should be modernized with audible technologies. The delimitation related to the census may require an interim mechanism to implement reservation of women without indefinitely waiting. And above these, there should be an unanimous manufacturing sense, with an all-party dialogue that accepts both northern aspirations and southern concerns.
The next census should be executed with excessive care and accuracy, including not only population data but also caste and migration matrix, so that India’s political map is rejected to reflect its real demographic and social realities. The success of this practice will determine whether delimitation is remembered as a moment of democratic renewal or as a trigger for division. It should also be said that electoral integrity stands out as an important factor.
The delimitation is not only about restarting the boundaries on a map. It is about confirming democratic principles that reduce the Republic. For the answer, it represents a long -delayed impartiality to promote the population. For the south, it is a test whether progress and discretion will be punished or rewarded. For women and marginal communities, it is a promise of empowerment through real representation. If contacted with transparency and consensus, delimitation can rejuvenate Indian democracy and can align it with the realities of the nation of 1.4 billion people. If incorrect, it risk widening regional division, reducing confidence in institutions and exposing the federal compact that keeps India together since independence. The work before India is not only to re -prepare its electoral boundaries, but to preserve and strengthen the democratic fabric that gives meaning to those boundaries.
This article is written by Ravindra Garimela, former Joint Secretary (Legislative), Lok Sabha Secretariat and Amal Chandra, Coordinator, SFL (India).
