#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.