Context:

• Southern States that invested early in health, education, and family planning have successfully slowed population growth.
• However, this success has led to unintended disadvantages. Since population size carries a 50% weight in Finance Commission allocations, southern States now receive a smaller share of Union tax revenue.
• The longer-term concern is political. With delimitation due before the 2029 elections, Lok Sabha seats are expected to be reallocated based on population.
• While the proportional share may remain similar, northern States—where population growth since 1991 has been much higher—will gain more seats in absolute terms.
• This would widen the representation gap, reducing the political influence of southern States.
• The core question is whether States that performed better on health and education should lose fiscal resources and political power for managing population growth responsibly.
• This article highlights how India’s upcoming delimitation exercise risks penalising southern States for successfully controlling population growth, and explores fair, constitutional alternatives—especially degressive proportionality—to protect federal balance and political equity.

Delimitation Challenge: Possible Solutions for Southern States

• The 84th Constitutional Amendment (2001) froze Lok Sabha seat redistribution until after the first Census post-2026, to reward States that successfully implemented family planning.
• With the delayed Census now expected by 2028 and delimitation before the 2029 elections, southern States face the risk of losing political influence as population-heavy northern States gain more seats.
• Proposed Solutions to Ensure Fair Representation
  • Expand Lok Sabha Without Redistributing Seats - Increase the total number of Lok Sabha seats while retaining the 2011 Census-based distribution. This avoids seat losses for any State but still favours States with higher population growth.
  • Balance Power Through Rajya Sabha Reform - Increase Lok Sabha seats and give equal representation to all States in the Rajya Sabha, similar to the U.S. Senate model. This would strengthen federal balance but is politically contentious.
  • Strengthen State-Level Representation - Expand Vidhan Sabha seats to equalise population-to-representative ratios across States, improving governance at the State level while keeping the Lok Sabha unchanged.
  • Mixed Formula for Lok Sabha Allocation - Allocate 60% of Lok Sabha seats based on population and 40% based on population-control performance. Inspired by the EU’s degressive proportionality model, this rewards demographic responsibility while preserving fairness.
• A united southern position, especially around the mixed formula approach, could provide a fair compromise—balancing population size with demographic performance and preventing political marginalisation.

Using Degressive Proportionality as a Fair Principle

• The Finance Commissions have long addressed regional inequities by using multiple criteria for fund allocation, not population alone.
• These include income distance to support poorer States, population to reflect expenditure needs, demographic performance to reward population control, and tax effort to incentivise fiscal responsibility.
• Since this balanced approach is already accepted in fiscal redistribution, the same logic can guide political representation.
• Applying the principle of degressive proportionality in delimitation would reward States that invested in health and education while still accounting for population size, making it a fair and defensible basis for reform.

Conclusion

• A fair delimitation framework must balance population size with demographic responsibility, ensuring States are not politically weakened for investing in health, education, and long-term national stability.