#unconstitutionalpromises?

 

The proposed 131st amendment to the Constitution is given as image.

It could be seen that Article 81 (1) which fixes the maximum number of seats in the Lok Sabha is sought to be amended to increase it.  Irrespective of the monetary burden it is likely to put on the exchequer, it is after all a call to be taken by the Parliament in its competence. 

Now, how the total number to be increased is to be distributed among different States and UTs is the question.

Article 81 (2) reads as under:

"(2) For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (1),—

(a) there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States; and

(b) each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State:

Provided that the provisions of sub-clause (a)of this clause shall not be applicable for the purpose of allotment of seats in the House of the People to any State so long as the population of that State does not exceed six millions."

As per Article 81 (2) (a) "there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States", which means that there cannot be a differential yardstick in allotting seats for each state based on the population of each state. THIS IS NOT SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED.

It could be seen that Article 81 (3) reads as below as on date:

"(3) In this article, the expression ―population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published:

Provided that the reference in this clause to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed,—

(i) for the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (2) and the proviso to that clause, as a reference to the 1971 census; and

(ii) for the purposes of sub-clause (b)of clause (2) as a reference to the 2001 census."

As per the above existing provision, 'for the purposes of sub- clause (a) of clause (2) and the proviso to that clause, as a reference to the 1971 census".

Now, in the present proposal, the above is sought to be amended by "'Population' means the population ascertained at such census, as Parliament may by law determine, of which the relevant figures have been published"

Thus, it could be seen that with the above proposal to amend Article 81 (3), the right to determine which census is to be used is taken away from the Constitutional ambit and given to the Parliament, which could be decided by a simple majority. This will nullify the subsequent provisio in the same Article regarding applicability of 1971 Census.  

Without applying the Census of 1971, it is not possible to allot the seats to all States in the present ratio, as per Article 81 (2).

Now, to make it unambiquous, Article 82 is sought to be amended.

Present Article 82 reads as "Readjustment after each census". Now this is sought to be amended as "Readjustment of Constituencies".

Next, the said Article which as on date reads as

"Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine"

is sought to be amended as :

"The allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted in such manner and on the basis of such Census by the Delimitation Commission and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine"

As per the above amendment, a Delimitation Commission is to be brought in. The nature of the Commission, its constitution, the terms of reference, the conditions of service of the members of the Commission, etc will be decided later by a simple majority because it will not be a Constitutional amendment. Thus, with this amendment, again the necessity of having 2/3 rd majority for such things is sought to be done away with.

Now we come to the next proposed amendment. 

The third provisio in Article 82 is sought to be omitted.

The said provisio as on date is as follows:
"Provided also that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust—

(i) the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States as readjusted on the basis of the 1971 census; and

(ii) the division of each State into territorial constituencies as may be readjusted on the basis of the 2001 census, under this article."

The year 2026 in the above provisio was inserted by the 84th amendment in 2002. Before that, the year was 2001. The reason was that the relevance of 1971 census was extended upto 2001 and then upto 2026. That is why the sub clause to the said Provisio that 'the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States as readjusted on the basis of the 1971 census' continued to be in vogue.

Now, with the proposal to delete the above Provisio, the basis of 1971 census is taken away and the last census for which figures are available are only 2011 (because due to COVID no Census could be conduced in 2021) and when the Article 81 (2) (a) stipulates that "there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States", it is clear that the promises made by the ruling party on the floor of the Parliament and outside that the number of seats for the states which have controlled their population in accordance with the Government (previous?) Policies will not stand to loose if delimitation is done on the basis of 2011 census, is TOTALLY UNCONSITUTIONAL, if these amendments are passed.

And a smoke screen is created for this by linking it to Womens Reservation, when that bill was separately passed in 2023 itself.

The problem is that this can be seen only with those with eyes and willingness to see.

#Delimitation bill and limiting of rights of some states

The Constitutional (131st Amendment) Bill is being introduced in the Lok Sabha.  This is done when assembly elections are underway and poling in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are yet to be completed.

There has already been an apprehension that if the delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies are done on the basis of 2011 Census instead of the 1971 Census as is currently in vogue for the existing Lok Sabha, those states which have not given priority to family planning and have allowed their population to grow alone would stand to gain and those states which have properly controlled population growth in the past decades will lose in representation in terms of membership in the Lok Sabha.

The current amendment is being tagged along with the women's Reservation bill proposing to ensure 33% of the seats in the Lok Sabha to women Parliamentarians.

Thus the total number of seats in the current Lok Sabha which is 543 is proposed to be increased to 815.  

If 33% of 815 (269) is reduced from the total, it will come to 546, which is roughly the present strength of the Lok Sabha.  When we consider that there are 74 women MPs in the current Lok Sabha, the above increase of seats will ensure that these 74 seats also may go to male MPs once the proposed bill is passed and elections are conducted to the new Lok Sabha under the amended provisions.  

If the proposal to increase the Lok Sabha seats was only to enable women's reservation, the number of seats for each State and UT should have been proposed to be increased in the same ratio or proportion as the whole.

There is a 50% increase of the total proposed.  But, when the seats are to be decided based on the 2021 census, it is not uniform, for the reason that population growth has been different in different states for reasons already stated above.

Further, Article 81 (1) and (3) are sought to be amended.  81 (2) reads that the states have representation as per the population of each state. Further it is under the Provisio to 81 (3) that the census of 1971 was held as the basis.  With amendment to 81 (3) that goes and what remains is that the Parliament may decide on which ever Census where published data is available.  Similarly, the third provisio to Article 82 which specifically stated that 1971 census shall be the basis is sought to be omitted in the proposed amendment.  Thus, it becomes clear that 1971 census will not have any bearing on the new delimitation exercise sought to be achieved through this amendment. 

Now, from some messages, I felt that the opposition to giving more seats to those stated which did not control population is being given a new twist, on question of 'secularism'.  It would give a hidden meaning as if whether it is for or against increase in population of Muslims.  For this perversion of an argument, first and foremost, one requires to see various studies that have shown that the rate of increase of Muslim Population is also reducing, unlike what is portrayed by right wingers for political purposes. As per the research paper by PEW Research Center the following patterns are observed:

(a) Slowing Growth Rates: The Muslim population growth rate has dropped from 29.5% (1991–2001) to 24.6% (2001-2011).

(b) Fertility Rates: Although Muslims have a higher population growth rate, their fertility rates are falling at the fastest rate among all major religious groups in India, suggesting a trend towards demographic stabilization.

Let us remember that there was no Census in 2021 due to COVID. 

Secondly, economic studies always have pointed out that poverty and illiteracy are the main reasons for population increase.  These factors are definitely not unique to one community alone.  And if at all one community is allowed to lag behind on these factors, then it is to be addressed by progressive measures.

And no one knowing the BJP would believe that it is to benefit the Muslim community, which they say are not adhering to birth control methods, that the above delimitation is being proposed by them.

The chart below would show which states stand to gain and which states stand to lose when 2011 census is applied for the delimitation for the new lok sabha. 

Name of the State/Union Territory		No of seats as of now	Consequence of present proposal for delimitation
		Total	If proportionately increased  (A)	If done as per 2021 Census  (B)	Difference between (B) and (A)
	STATES:
1	Andhra Pradesh	42
	AP	25	38	34	-4
	Telengana	17	26	24	-2
2	Arunachal Pradesh*	2	3
3	Assam	14	21	21	0
4	Bihar	40	60	72	12
5	Chhattisgarh	11	17	17	0
6	Goa	2	3
7	Gujarat	26	39	42	3
8	Haryana	10	15	17	2
9	Himachal	4	6
	Pradesh		0
10	Jammu and	6	9
	Kashmir		0
11	Jharkhand	14	21	23	2
12	Karnataka	28	42	42	0
13	Kerala	20	30	23	-7
14	Madhya Pradesh	29	44	50	7
15	Maharashtra	48	72	78	6
16	Manipur	2	3
17	Meghalaya	2	3
18	Mizoram	1	2
19	Nagaland	1	2
20	Orissa	21	32	29	-3
21	Punjab	13	20	19	-1
22	Rajasthan	25	38	47	10
23	Sikkim	1	2
24	Tamil Nadu	39	59	50	-9
25	Tripura	2	3
26	Uttarakhand	5	8
27	Uttar Pradesh	80	120	138	18
28	West Bengal	42	63	63	0
	II. UNION		0
	TERRITORIES:		0
1	Andaman and	1	2
	Nicobar Islands		0
2	Chandigarh	1	2
3	Dadra and Nagar Haveli	1	2
4	Delhi	7	11	16	6
5	Daman and Diu	1	2
6	Lakshadweep	1	2
7	Puducherry	1	2
	Total Seats	543	815

The above statistics would show which areas will suffer from being under-represented in the Lok Sabha, if the 2011 census is adopted for the above exercise.

The solution will be only to have a uniform increase of 50% of the present strength of all states so that women's reservation is achieved and the purpose of having built a new Parliamentary Building with more seating capacity is also achieved, not withstanding what was spent on the building and what will be the net expenditure for the POOR Government due to the increase of 50% of the strength. (This Government has not been able to pay the DA which was frozen during the COVID and has not been able to restore the concession for Senior Citizens in the Railways, which was also withdrawn during the COVID.  

This Government has also laid down in the terms of reference of the 8th CPC that the CPC should consider the following also:

(i) The economic conditions in the country and the need for fiscal prudence;

(ii) The need to ensure that adequate resources are available for developmental expenditure and welfare measures;

(iii) The unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes;

And, last but not the least, it was the BJP Government which withdrew the Family Planning Allowance to the Government Employees, in 2017, which was all along being promoted to ensure small family norms to contain population growth.

Thus, the writing on the wall with the above amendment would be that we will be turning our back on time tested economic criteria for ensuring growth and wellbeing of the society.

Once this is passed, Union Government could be run by concentrating on a hand full of States alone.  That is not democracy but oligarchy.