DELIMITATION 2026: A THREAT TO INDIA’S FEDERAL DEMOCRACY?

Author: Sujen Rafik Shaikh, Siddharth College of Law, Mumbai

How Political Manipulation of Seat Redistribution Could Undermine the Nation’s Democratic Framework

Abstract

The 2026 delimitation process poses a significant challenge to India’s democratic and federal structure. While meant to ensure fair representation, its implementation under the current political regime raises concerns of potential misuse. If seat redistribution is based solely on population growth, North Indian states—where the ruling party has a stronger presence—will gain more parliamentary seats, while Southern states, despite their higher economic contributions, may lose representation.

This could lead to a severe imbalance in national policymaking, undermining federalism and regional equity. Historical patterns suggest political favoritism in central funding and governance, indicating that delimitation might be manipulated to weaken opposition-ruled states. The article argues for freezing delimitation until India achieves greater socio-economic parity and reduced political polarization, ensuring a fair and democratic electoral process.

Introduction

The upcoming 2026 delimitation process is poised to reshape India’s parliamentary structure, potentially altering the balance of political power between the North and South. While the exercise is constitutionally mandated, its timing and execution under the current political regime raise concerns about its potential misuse. Given the highly polarized political climate, any delimitation favoring population-based seat distribution risks deepening regional disparities, marginalizing opposition-ruled states, and weakening the principles of federalism and representative democracy.

The ruling party, which enjoys electoral dominance in North India but struggles in the South, has already demonstrated a pattern of political favoritism—rewarding states that align with its agenda while economically and administratively isolating those that oppose it. This article explores why freezing delimitation, as was done in 1976, is a more prudent course of action until India achieves greater socio-economic and political stability.
Delimitation & Its Legal Context

Delimitation refers to the redrawing of parliamentary and legislative constituencies to reflect demographic changes. The process is governed by Article 82 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates a Delimitation Commission after every Census. However, the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, imposed a freeze on delimitation until 2001, which was later extended to 2026 via the 84th Amendment Act, 2002.

The primary justification for this freeze was to prevent states that implemented successful population control policies from being politically disadvantaged. However, with 2026 approaching, the political stakes of delimitation have drastically changed, particularly in a highly polarized India where governance decisions are often dictated by electoral considerations rather than national interest.

Historical Precedents of Delimitation in India

The first four delimitation exercises (1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002) were largely non-controversial because they maintained a balance between population representation and regional stability. However, the 1976 freeze was implemented to encourage family planning and economic growth, particularly in Southern and Western states, which had lower birth rates than their Northern counterparts.

Had delimitation continued unchecked, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar would have gained disproportionate representation, while progressive states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka would have lost influence. This was seen as unfair and counterproductive, as states that successfully controlled their populations would be politically punished.

Now, the 2026 delimitation threatens to reverse these safeguards, once again favoring population-heavy states at the cost of those that have focused on economic and social development.

The Political Implications of 2026 Delimitation

While the exercise is theoretically aimed at ensuring fair representation, in practice, it presents a serious risk of gerrymandering and political engineering. Several factors indicate that the process could be manipulated to consolidate power rather than strengthen democracy.

I am deeply concerned that India’s current political climate is not conducive to this exercise. The BJP, with 240 seats in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, relies on coalition partners like JD(U) and TDP, while opposition parties like Congress (99 seats), DMK (22 seats), and TMC (29 seats) have significant numbers but face unity challenges. Posts found on X highlight opposition leaders’ fears, with Tamil Nadu’s M.K. Stalin and Kerala’s Pinarayi Vijayan warning that delimitation could deepen regional divides. My concerns include:
Regional Imbalance
Increased seats for northern states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh, Bihar) and potential losses for southern states (e.g., Tamil Nadu, Kerala) could shift political power northward, marginalizing southern interests. Southern states, contributing 35% of GDP from 18% of the population, fear reduced representation, as highlighted in Tamil Nadu’s Assembly resolution on delimitation.

Government Favoritism and Misuse
The BJP’s stronger influence in northern states raises fears of gerrymandering, with boundaries redrawn to favor BJP strongholds. Assam’s delimitation exercise reflects allegations of minority marginalization, with Muslim-majority areas split or reserved for SCs. I also see evidence of favoritism in budget allocations for BJP-aligned states like Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, while opposition-led states like Tamil Nadu face funding cuts for opposing the NEP 2020.

Deepening Polarization
Religious and political polarization, exacerbated by Hindutva politics, could intensify if delimitation is perceived as favoring certain regions or communities. Reports on incidents like mob lynchings and anti-minority rhetoric reflect fears that delimitation could deepen communal divides, undermining India’s pluralistic democracy.

Time Constraints for Damage Control
Repairing the damage—restoring federal trust, reducing polarization, and ensuring fair representation—will take significant time, which India lacks amidst global economic challenges, climate change, and internal unrest. Posts discussing India’s global standing highlight the urgency of addressing these pressures, leaving limited room for long-term reforms.

The Threat to Democracy and Federalism

Delimitation, if mishandled, poses significant threats to India’s democracy and federalism, as outlined below:

Erosion of Federal Trust and Regional Alienation

I fear that delimitation will deepen regional imbalances, with northern states gaining seats at the expense of southern states. For example, Uttar Pradesh’s Lok Sabha seats could increase from 80 to 128, while Kerala’s could drop from 20 to 19. Insights into southern leaders’ fears reflect concerns that reduced representation could undermine their political influence and economic contributions. Southern states may feel marginalized, perceiving that their interests—such as central funding for development projects, language policies, and cultural priorities—are sidelined. This could lead to demands for greater state autonomy, protests, or secessionist sentiments, weakening federal cohesion. Posts discussing Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s remarks on “secessionists” in the south reflect fears that BJP’s insensitivities threaten national unity.

Misuse by the Ruling Party and Undermining Democratic Fairness

Given the BJP’s stronger influence in northern states, I worry about potential gerrymandering, with boundaries redrawn to favor BJP strongholds or split opposition-dominated areas. Analyses of Assam highlight allegations that Muslim-majority areas were deliberately split or reserved, weakening their political influence. I also see evidence of government favoritism in budget allocations, with Bihar and Andhra Pradesh receiving significant funds in the Budget 2025-26, while opposition-led states like Tamil Nadu face neglect. Examination of DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai’s criticism reflect fears that the BJP is “appeasing” Nitish Kumar and Chandrababu Naidu to stay in power. This could distort representation, reducing the opposition’s ability to compete on a level playing field, and undermine democratic legitimacy.

Deepening Religious and Political Polarization

The BJP’s promotion of Hindutva politics, with policies and rhetoric perceived as targeting minorities, exacerbates my fears that delimitation could deepen communal divides. Reports on incidents like mob lynchings and protests over citizenship laws (e.g., CAA) reflect concerns that minority-majority constituencies could be reserved or split, weakening their political voice. I also worry about linguistic tensions, with Tamil Nadu facing funding cuts for opposing the NEP’s three-language formula, including Hindi. Posts discussing M.K. Stalin’s letter to PM Modi on February 19, 2025, reflect fears of “Hindi colonialism,” with DMK accusing the BJP of punitive funding cuts. This could deepen regional and linguistic divides, undermining India’s pluralistic democracy.

Strain on Democratic Institutions

An expanded Lok Sabha, potentially increasing to 753 seats, could strain parliamentary functioning, especially if presiding officers struggle to manage larger Houses. Posts discussing procedural reforms reflect concerns that the BJP could leverage its northern influence to dominate proceedings, reducing accountability and weakening opposition voices. I worry that this could undermine the effectiveness of democratic institutions, such as the Election Commission and Parliament, especially in a polarized climate. Debate regarding opposition walkouts in the Budget Session 2025 highlight tensions, with DMK MPs protesting Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s remarks on Tamil Nadu’s “dishonesty” regarding the PM SHRI scheme.

Time Constraints and Challenges of Damage Control

I am deeply concerned that repairing the damage caused by delimitation will take significant time, which India does not have given global and domestic pressures. Below are key challenges and time constraints:

Restoring Federal Trust

Restoring federal trust will require significant dialogue, policy reforms, and confidence-building measures, especially if southern states feel marginalized. Tamil Nadu’s all-party meeting on delimitation reflects efforts to unite opposition parties, but implementing reforms is complex. This process could take years, if not decades, as southern states may demand changes to the federal structure, such as restructuring Rajya Sabha seats or capping Lok Sabha seats. Global economic challenges (e.g., inflation, trade deficits) and climate change (e.g., floods, droughts) leave limited time for such efforts, as governments must prioritize immediate crises. Posts discussing India’s global standing highlight the urgency of addressing these pressures, exacerbating the time constraint.

Reducing Religious and Political Polarization

Addressing religious polarization requires educational reforms, social awareness campaigns, and legal measures to combat hate speech and communal violence. Analyses on Manmohan Singh’s era (2004-2014) reflect nostalgia for social cohesion, but replicating it today is challenging due to intensified polarization. Reducing polarization is a long-term process, requiring sustained efforts across multiple governments. India’s current political climate, marked by coalition dynamics and opposition distrust, complicates these efforts. Global pressures, such as geopolitical tensions and economic competition, further limit the government’s focus on social cohesion, leaving limited time for damage control.

Ensuring Fair Representation and Minority Inclusion

If delimitation disadvantages minorities or opposition voter bases, ensuring fair representation will require revisiting boundary changes, addressing historical disadvantages, and strengthening minority rights. Discussion on the Sachar Committee Report (2006) highlight the need for inclusivity, but implementing these reforms is complex. Reversing gerrymandering or minority marginalization could take years, involving legal challenges, public consultations, and parliamentary debates. India’s limited time to address internal social unrest and global challenges (e.g., climate migration, economic inequality) makes this process even more difficult, exacerbating the time constraint.

Strengthening Democratic Institutions

If delimitation strains democratic institutions, strengthening them will require procedural reforms, capacity-building for presiding officers, and expanded parliamentary infrastructure. Posts discussing the need for a new Parliament building reflect resource-intensive changes. Building institutional capacity is a long-term endeavor, requiring significant investment and political will. India’s limited time to address immediate crises, such as economic recovery and public health, leaves little room for these efforts, delaying damage control. Debate regarding opposition protests in Parliament reflect efforts to challenge government policies, but unity is crucial for impact.

Oppositions Unity: Potential and Challenges

I believe it is not too late for the opposition to act, given their parliamentary strength, but unity is crucial. The opposition INDIA bloc, with Congress, DMK, and TMC, has significant numbers to challenge government policies, but unity faces challenges. Posts discussing opposition walkouts in the Budget Session 2025 reflect coordinated action, with DMK MPs protesting funding cuts for Tamil Nadu. However, ideological and regional differences, electoral competition, and government divide-and-rule tactics complicate unity. Posts discussing TMC’s reluctance to align fully with Congress in West Bengal reflect tensions, while BJP allies like JD(U) and TDP face coalition pressures. I worry that without unity, the opposition cannot effectively challenge government favoritism and mitigate delimitation risks.

Strategies to Mitigate Risk

While I previously suggested freezing delimitation, I recognize that it is a constitutional necessity to ensure fair representation. To mitigate risks and minimize damage, robust safeguards are essential. Below are key strategies:

Independent and Transparent Delimitation Commission: The Commission must be independent, transparent, and inclusive, with representation from all regions and political parties. Analyses on Assam reflect demands for transparency, with calls for the Commission to work closely with state election commissions and civil society.
National Consensus Exercise: A nationwide consultation involving all states, political parties, and stakeholders is essential to address regional concerns before 2026. Debates regarding Tamil Nadu’s all-party meeting reflect efforts to unite on delimitation, with Congress and TMC supporting similar initiatives.
Capping Lok Sabha Seats: Proposals like capping Lok Sabha seats at 543, as suggested by the Pranab Mukherjee Foundation, merit serious consideration to maintain federal equity. Examinations of this proposal reflect the need for parliamentary debates, with southern states leading the charge.
Restructuring Rajya Sabha Representation: To compensate for potential losses in Lok Sabha seats, Rajya Sabha representation could be restructured to ensure fair representation for southern states. Studies on federal practices in the U.S. Senate reflect the need for constitutional reforms.
Addressing Minority Representation: The delimitation process must address concerns about minority representation, ensuring that constituencies are not reserved in ways that disadvantage marginalized communities. Assam highlight the need for inclusivity and transparency.
Balancing Economic Contributions and Representation: Southern states’ economic contributions should be factored into the delimitation process, ensuring that their interests are not sidelined. Tamil Nadu’s disappointment with the Budget 2025-26 reflect the need for equity.
Strengthening Opposition Unity: The opposition must coordinate in Parliament, leverage all-party meetings, and engage BJP allies like JD(U) and TDP to challenge government policies. Insight into opposition protests reflect efforts to raise concerns, but sustained coordination is essential.
Reducing Polarization and Strengthening Social Cohesion: Parallel efforts to reduce polarization through educational reforms, public awareness campaigns, and inter-state consultations are crucial. Studies on Manmohan Singh’s era and past periods of Governments reflect the importance of inclusive growth for social cohesion.

Conclusion

Delimitation in 2026, while essential for democratic representation, poses significant risks to India’s democracy and federalism in a polarized climate. My concerns—regional imbalances, government favoritism, deepening polarization, and time constraints for damage control—reflect valid anxieties about long-lasting damage. Studies on highlight fears from opposition parties, southern leaders, and minority groups that delimitation could deepen regional and communal divides, undermining India’s pluralistic democracy. While opposition unity offers hope, challenges like electoral rivalries and coalition dynamics complicate efforts to act.
I believe that freezing delimitation or implementing robust safeguards—such as an independent Commission, national consensus, capping Lok Sabha seats, restructuring Rajya Sabha representation, and addressing minority concerns—can mitigate risks and minimize damage. Parallel efforts to reduce polarization and strengthen social cohesion, inspired by Manmohan Singh’s era and past periods of Governments inclusive growth, are essential for long-term stability. Ultimately, the path forward lies in reconciling democratic ideals with federal equity, ensuring that delimitation serves the national interest, not partisan agendas. By prioritizing transparency, accountability, and opposition unity, India can minimize damage and strengthen its democracy, even amidst challenges. However, if these strategies are not implemented, my fears of long-lasting damage and limited time for damage control may indeed materialize, posing significant challenges for India’s democratic future.