Several recent articles in the mainstream media suggest that a delimitation exercise — if carried out with population as the primary criterion for allocating parliamentary constituencies (PCs) — would disproportionately disadvantage the southern States.
Proponents of this view argue that the southern States, having adhered more rigorously to family planning norms than their northern counterparts, would either receive comparatively fewer PC seats or could even be left with less seats than what they have currently.
But the broader question that has not been adequately discussed is: what is the most rational criterion for allocation of PCs: population or the number of electors?
Electors in a constituency are not always a subset of the population. Many electors may live outside their registered PCs, or may have failed to register. Census records are sensitive to migration, as they are based merely on a stay of six months or more (or even an intention to stay), without even requiring any proof of residence or registration in the voter list.
Migrants also generally avoid/delay transferring their voter registration for various reasons. Furthermore, variations in the age structure — such as a higher proportion of under-18s — may also lead to large differences in elector numbers between PCs with similar populations.
Importantly, the principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ aligns more closely with electors than the population. Using elector data avoids the wait for a Census and offers a more accurate measure of representation.
Elector disparity
The value of a vote can be considered inversely proportional to the number of electors in a PC. Data shows that vote value has varied significantly across regions and over time. Union Territories (UTs), hilly States, and north-eastern States have consistently had a disproportionately high vote value from 1951 to 2024, due to geographical considerations and the minimum representation requirement from each State.
When comparing the southern States with other States, we find that they started with a higher vote value in 1951. However, this trend reversed, and they recorded a lower vote value in 1961, 1971, 1980, 1991, and 1999.
The trend reversed once again, with the southern States registering a higher vote value in 2009, 2019, and 2024. It shows a mixed pattern, with the percentage difference in the average number of electors between the southern States and other States ranging from -10.5% to +5%.
Importantly, the southern States began with a higher vote value per parliamentary constituency when the first Parliament was formed in 1951. This initial advantage may have potential long-term implications for government policies and initiatives, development outcomes, and more.
Moreover, among the five largest and five smallest PCs (excluding hilly/UTs/north-east) in terms of electors, four in each group are from the southern States. The value of a vote in Idukki is 4.5 times higher than in Malkajgiri and 2.6 times higher than in Bangalore North. This indicates that rationalisation of PCs is more needed in the southern States.
Rajya Sabha representation
According to the elector data for 2024, the southern States account for just 22.45% of India’s electors, yet they hold 23.8% of Lok Sabha seats. Their representation in the Rajya Sabha is even more skewed, at 24.4%, exceeding both their share of electors and their Lok Sabha seat share.
The pattern is reversed for the other States. Although they comprise 71.2% of India’s electors, they hold only 67.4% of Lok Sabha seats and just 64.4% of Rajya Sabha seats.
In particular, Tamil Nadu has 39 Lok Sabha seats which is lower than Bihar’s 40 or West Bengal’s 42; but it has 18 Rajya Sabha seats, which is more than the 16 seats allotted to both Bihar and West Bengal.
The fairer approach is to allocate seats based on electors. In the table, column 4 shows the proposed PC seats if the total number of seats is raised to 800.
To avoid penalising smaller States and UTs, their current seat count is preserved, which results in a total of 810. The table shows that among the large States, Rajasthan (76%), Karnataka (60.7%), and Telangana (58.8%) would see the highest percentage gains in seats.
The current narratives — that PCs are allocated solely on the basis of population, and that the potential reduction in seats in southern States is primarily due to their strict adherence to family planning policies — are not entirely accurate.
First, constituency allocation has never been based purely on population. Other considerations, i.e., geographical challenges and minimum representation, have always played a role.
Second, linking political representation to population control sets a dangerous precedent. By that logic, similar claims could be made for representation based on religion or caste.
For instance, Jains, among all religious groups, and upper castes, among all social groups, have the highest adherence to population control, while Muslims and Scheduled Tribes have comparatively higher fertility rates.
Third, when the criterion of using population for the formation of PCs was originally adopted, the consequences of the population enumeration method and the impact of large-scale migration were not anticipated.
Therefore, the principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ in a true sense is more closely aligned with the number of electors rather than the population across PCs.
Anish Gupta teaches Economics at Delhi School of Economics. Juliana from IEDS, Noida, helped in data entry.
Published – June 11, 2025 08:00 am IST