Delimitation: Why Are Southern Indian States Worried? Hindi v Non Hindi States | Sarmad Sir | UPSC

0:03 Hello and welcome to an academy. In India, census is a decadal exercise conducted every 10 years. It was supposed to be conducted in 2021 but got delayed because of COVID and then it got indefinitely postponed. Census could have been conducted in 2022 or 2023, 24, 25, 26. But now the Union government has announced that census would be conducted by March 2027 because census is under the domain of the union government. This is what has led to the southern states particularly Tamil Nadu alleged that this delay in

0:48 census is deliberate because when the census would be conducted in 2027 it will pave way for delimitation or readjustment of parliamentary constituencies where southern states would be at a disadvantage and who will be at an advantage the Hindi-speaking states of North India If that happens then southern states will lose their political voice in the national politics in Lok Sabha. And in this video we will try and understand five best alternatives to this controversial delimitation exercise. Which of these alternatives do you think is best or most feasible? Do let me know

1:36 in the comment section. Or if you have a better alternative, an innovative alternative, do let me know in the comment section as well. And let's try and understand this delimitation because it is all about increase or decrease. But not every decrease is problematic or bad. For example, ANA Academy Management has decided to reduce the subscription fee of our UPSC preparation program to 17,000 9 and this offer I'm told is valid till tonight. If you are an IS aspirant targeting cse 2026 or 27 and targeting in English medium, this is India's most affordable

2:21 UPSC preparation program where through live classes we comprehensively cover the GS and the SEAD syllabus, weekly tests, study material, current affairs is all integrated in this program. Should you wish to enroll in this program, go to our website, check various plans, for example, plus iconic. And if you're opting for our plus subscription, you may see a different price being quoted on the website. But once you apply this code, you will automatically see the lowest price being quoted on the website. You will unlock the lowest subscription fee, which right now is available at 179. To understand delimitation, we need to

3:08 understand two provisions of Indian constitution. Article 81 and article 82. Article 81 talks about composition of the house of the people which is Lok Sabha. Constitution says if the Lok Sabha seats are for example 543 we have to allot these seats to states in such a manner that the ratio of the number and the population of the state remains same for all the states but constitution uses a phrase so far as practicable and what is this so far as practicable I'm going to come back to this in a moment so park your thoughts Long story short, if this is the

3:55 population of a particular state, we have to divide the population into constituencies so that in every state one person, one value, one vote is recognized. Which means if 10 lakh people in Kerala are represented by one MP, 10 lakh people in UP should also be represented by one MP. This is what will ensure and guarantee one person one value one vote. Further article 82 talks about readjustment after every census. How do we get to know whether the population is increased or decreased? By conducting a decadal exercise called census. Constitution says under article 82 that

4:40 after every census there has to be readjustment. That means in those areas where we have seen an increase in the population we should increase their representation in the form of more seats to Lok Sabha to that state and accordingly if there is a population reduction in a particular state we have to reduce their representation in Lok Sabha and this is what has happened after the census of 1951 delimitation was carried out in 1952 after the census of 1961, del limitation was carried out in 1963. After the census of 1971, del limitation was carried out in 1973. And each time

5:26 we saw an increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha. It used to be 494 then it went up to 522 then it went up to 543 because after every census there has to be readjustment as the population increases corresponding to that the seats in Lok Sabha should also increase and these seats will be assigned to those states where we have seen an increase in the population after the census of 1981. One another delimitation should have been carried out but it was not carried out. Why? Because in 1976 constitution was amended.

6:13 Why constitution was amended? Because of 42nd constitutional amendment act in 1976. The constitution now says no more delimitation for the next 25 years. That means till 2001 there should be no delimitation. Why? The reason was not given but the reason was implicit. Why? Because we want to encourage family planning programs. Because if the population increase, we'll see an increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha. Then where is the incentive for the states to discourage population growth to implement family planning programs to see a reduction or population stabilization?

6:59 So when the census was conducted in 1981 there was no delimitation. When the census was conducted in 1991 there was no delimitation. But when the census was conducted in 2001 there should have been delimitation. Why? Because there is a freeze on delimitation for the next 25 years which means till 2001. In 2002 constitution was amended again 84th constitutional and it says no further increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha till the census figures taken after 2026 are known. There was a delimitation which was conducted in or carried out in

7:46 2002 but it did not lead to an increase in the number of seats. Then what was the purpose of delimitation? For example, this is a state where we have four constituencies and let's say 10 lakh were represented by one MP because as much as possible we have to ensure that the population to seat ratio remains the same within the state as well. So this is a state where we have four constituencies and in all these four constituencies 10 lakh people are represented by one MP. This was on the basis of 1971 census. Then in 1981 census population increased.

8:32 1991 census population increased. 2001 census population increased and increase in population cannot be uniform as well. Maybe here we saw population increase to 20 lakh. Here population increased to 50 lakh. Here population increase to 30 lakh. And here population increase to 20 lakh. Now see the disparity. 20 lakh people are represented by 1 MP. Here 50 lakh are represented by 1 MP. Here 30. Here 20. When delimitation was carried out in 2002, the purpose was not to increase the number of seats. The purpose was seats will remain the same

9:19 but we should ensure uniformity. Which means for the lack of a better word to make it simplistic for you if the total population becomes 120 lakh then we need to ensure that in every constituency there are 30 lakh people who are represented by one MP so that at least within the state one person one value one vote is recognized. Total number of seats will remain the same but internal delimitation will be carried out in such a manner that we will fix or refix the territorial boundaries in such a manner that one person one value one vote is recognized within that state. There was another reason why delimitation was carried out in 2002.

10:06 The reason was we need to provide increase in the representation to SC's and STS because in India in Lok Sabha there is reservation of seats for SC's and STS according to their population. So the last time we adjusted their reservation was on the basis of 1971 census but the population of SC's and STS would have increased in 81 91 2001 and we have to reflect and respect that increase. So total number of seats will remain the same but the number of seats reserved for SC's and STS would see an increase. That is why delimitation was conducted in 2002. But if at all delimitation is to be

10:53 conducted which will see an increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha that can happen only after the census figures taken after 2026 are known. But if the census is a decadal exercise conducted every decade. It was meant to be conducted in 2021 and next it could have been conducted in 2031. So if at all we could see an increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha that could happen only after the census of 2031 because after 2026 we have 2031 census but since this census got delayed was not conducted in 22 23 24 25 26 will be

11:40 conducted in 2027 which means after 2026 the census figures are known in 2027. 7 and after 2027 we will now see delimitation and if this delimitation is conducted on the basis of the population where we have seen massive population growth in northern Indian states and we have seen population stabilizing in the southern India who will be at an advantage the northern Indian states and who will be at a disadvantage the southern Indian states when constit Constitution was amended in 1976, no reason was given why we want to freeze delimitation for another 25

12:25 years. But when once 84th amendment was done, reason was provided. The reason was keeping in view the progress of family planning programs in different parts of the country. The government as part of the national population policy strategy we want to further freeze delimitation for another 25 years and that is where we will now see five alternatives to this delimitation exercise. But the first thing is let's go ahead let's conduct delimitation on the basis of the latest population figures which is 2027 census. Why? Because constitution has guaranteed political

13:11 equality. One person, one value, one vote. In the words of Robert A. Dal, this political equality can be traced to an idea that all human beings are of equal intrinsic worth. We have to treat the people of this country equally. There should be no discrimination on the grounds of the fact that you are residing in UP or you are residing in Tamil Nadu or Kerala or Karnataka. Political equality has to ensure one person, one value, one vote. If the population has increased in the northern India, what is the fault of the people? Why should

13:57 32 lakh people in UP be represented by one MP and only 18 lakh people are represented by one MP in Kerala. Which means the value of the vote of a voter in Kerala is almost double to the value of the vote of a voter in Uttar Pradesh. Economist Shrui Raja Gopalan of George Mason University. She says Tamil Nadu and Kerala they have now 9 and six seats more than their population share. While the poorer states or the populous states such as Bihar and UP they have 9 and 12 seats favor than their proportion

14:44 of population. Isn't this violation of political equality which is guaranteed by the preamble of the Indian constitution? That is why the first step has to be conduct delimitation or we should go back to the original constitutional ratio which was that for every 7.5 lakh population there should be one MP and let's distribute the seats in this arrangement for every 7.5 lakh people there should be one MP basis this we may see in 2020 29 the seeds of Lok Sabha the strength of the Lok Sabha will go up from 543 to 1872

15:33 but despite the fact that we have a newer parliament a bigger parliament it can accommodate only 880 which means those advocates who are advocating for delimitation in proportion to their population that on the basis of the original constitutional idea that for every 7.5 lakh people there should be one MP which was changed later in 1971 it became 10 lakh population 1 MP this we cannot implement in India right now because that would mean a massive Lok Sabha with 1872 seats that is why perhaps this formula is not workable and at the same time I told you article

16:19 81 talks about so far as practicable That means the ratio of the number of seats to the population has to remain same throughout the country in all the states but as far as practicable. As far as practicable even if 10 lakh was the basis of delimitation in 1971 which means for every 10 lakh there should be one representative. We did not follow this formula for smaller states in northeast states such as Orurunachal, states such as Goa where even though they have less than 8 lakh population, they have one represent that means these southern these northeastern states they have more representation in Lok Sabha corresponding to their population

17:07 and that is what we call as far as practicable. as far as practicable because we do not follow symmetrical federalism. We embrace asymmetrical federalism. What is federalism? There are two units union and states. We have union and we have 28 states. Are all these states to be treated equally or can we treat some states differently according to their whether they are on the borders whether they have difficult or hilly terrain because of various considerations such as tribal population or scheduled cast population. We do not treat all states equally in India. That is why there are states

17:52 which have special status under article 371. Long story short, those who advocate that population alone has to be the criteria to grant increase in the number of seats, this is not reflective in our constitutional scheme because we follow asymmetrical federalism. So we have to consider other considerations as well. If the southern states have been effective in population planning programs, why are we then penalizing the good performing southern states and incentivizing the bad performing northern states because they have failed to control the population. So if one alternative is go ahead conduct the delimitation on the basis of the population because that is what is

18:39 guaranteed by the constitution we say that may not be feasible because constitution says as far as practicable so that we have to consider other considerations as we need to incentivize the good performing southern states and if for their good performance they will see a reduction in their representation in Lok Sabha this would violate the principle of nondominance and what is that non-dominance? I'll come to that slightly later. There is alternative number two as proposed by the Tamil Nadu chief minister Mr. Stalin. He says 30-year status quo. In 1976, we amended the constitution and froze delimitation for 25 years. In 84th

19:27 constitutional amendment, we froze delimitation for another 25 years. Let's freeze it again for another 30 years so that our future possibly wiser population would be in a position to better resolve this issue of delimitation. Otherwise, there will be this north south divide which is not good for federal polity. This is alternative number two. stop it for the next 30 years like we did twice in the past. Then we have a third alternative. Freeze Lok Sabha, increase legislative assembly and reform Raj Sabha. Pre Lok Sabha in the sense Lok Sabha should remain at 543.

20:15 If there are 80 representatives in Lok Sabha from UP, it should remain the same. If there are 39 from Tamil Nadu, it will remain the same. It should remain the same. Don't increase the number of seats in Loka. But delimitation has an another aspect as well. After the population increase, we have to provide increase in the representation of these people in legislative assemblies as well. So if today UP has a 403 member legislative assembly, Tamil Nadu has a 234 member legislative assembly, let's increase, let's increase from 403 to maybe 503 or 603, from 234 to 534. This

21:00 is where no state will object to each other. If the strength of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly is going to increase to 400, why should UP get worried? Or if the strength of the UP legislative assembly increases to 1,000, why should up why should Bihar or for that matter Tamil Nadu or Karnataka be worried? Delimmitation has two aspects. Increase the number of seats in Lok Sabha, increase the number of seats in the legislative assembly, freeze Lok Sabha, but increase the legislative assembly and reform Rajya Sabha. Reform Rajya Sabha in the sense on the pattern of US Senate because Indian parliament is bicameal. There is Lok Sabha, there is Rajya Sabha, lower house, upper house.

21:45 Similarly in US we have a Congress, House of Representatives, Senate, Senate. Every state in United States, all the 50 states, they have two representatives each in Senate. Two senators in Senate regardless of your population. But in India we see Rajya Sabha has representation on the basis of the population. This is where UP has 31 MPs in Rajya Sabha. Tamil Nadu has 19 but Sikkim has only one. Similarly northeastern states one each. Goa one. In that formula what we can do is if the strength of the Rajya Sabha is let's say 280 for example let's divide 280 equally

22:35 in 10 states in 28 states 10 each so that in Rajya Sabha every state will have equal representation regardless of your population which means every state will have equal voice in Rajya Sabha. If Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana, Kerala, they're asking for reduction or they're asking for status quo. They are not asking for increase on the basis of the population but they may not be happy with this formula of reform the Rajya Sabha. But this is the third alternative. Pre Lok Sabha, reform Rajya Sabha so that every state has an equal say in Rajya Sabha because Rajya Sabha is the council of

23:21 states. It represents the states interest of the states in the parliament and for that every state has to be treated equally and increase the legislative assembly. increase the strength of the legislature because if population becomes the basis for the increase in the composition or the strength of the Lok Sabha southern states would be at a disadvantage. How an analysis was done by Milan Vnau and Jeremy Hinston. They show that if the Lok Sabha seats are reallocated in proportion to each state's projected population in 2026 then what we will see all the southern Indian states would be losers.

24:09 Tamil Nadu will be down by eight seats. Kerala would also be down by eight seats. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana together combined because they were one state previously would be down by eight seats. Karnataka will be down by two seats. Not just southern India, nobody's talking about eastern India. We will see West Bengal will be down by four states, four seats. And it is not a Hindi speaking state. Odisa down by three seats. Punjab down by one seat. The only area where we will see an increase in the seats would be the northern Indian Hindi-peaking states except Himachel and Uttarakhand. These are also Hindi speaking seats states

24:54 they will see a reduction by one each one seat each but except them all the other states Hindi would be the gainers biggest gainers. UP for example will be up 11 seats, Bihar up 10 seats, Rajasthan six, Madhya Pradesh up to four and this will lead to another divide Hindi versus non-Hindi. We have already seen the controversy surrounding the national education policy where states such as Tamil Nadu is alleging that it is not a three language formula. It is basically forcing us to understand, read, study Hindi.

25:39 So if this happens, it will throw up another controversy and will further create differences, drive wedge between Hindi and non-Hindspeaking states. And this is what I was telling you goes against the spirit of non-dominance which is enshrined in our constitution. non-dominance. No cast group or a religious group or a linguistic group, no matter how much dominant you are in terms of population, you should not be in a position to dominate other smaller groups because all of them are to be treated equally. If you look at United States, we say United States is the oldest federal constitution of the world.

26:24 And it got created because of a contract, because of a treaty. When all these 13 British colonies which decided to revolt, declare American war of independence, then they liberated themselves from the British colonialism. But then these 13 previously British colonies now independent they decided to come together to create United States of America. The United States of America was created because of a treaty because of an agreement between these 13 states. And that is why we say US is a federal polity. India is also a federal polity. But India was not created because there was an agreement between states. There was no such agreement. There was no such treaty.

27:11 But the need of the hour is to have a treaty now. And what is that treaty? Population based political representation should come to an end. If the population increases, so should your representation in Lok Sabha. There has to be a closure on this. This we should not accept because then it will violate our federal policy, federal principles. We embraced federalism because of holding together federalism. Our model of federalism is holding together. And what is this holding together federalism? In federalism, there are some powers given to the unions, some powers given to the states. So there is distribution of powers.

27:56 geographically vast countries such as India, diverse countries such as India. We have embraced federalism not because there was a treaty to create a federal India but because of our own survival if we would not have distributed powers linguistically diverse states may have come out of the Union of India. So culturally diverse, geographically vast countries such as India, we have embraced federalism because we want to stay united because we are culturally diverse, geographically diverse. We have created states in the name of language because we wanted to accept that unity in diversity. And if there is a threat to our unity

28:42 and diversity because of delimitation exercise, we need to come together to create a treaty to put an end to this. And how do we do that? Ensure that population is not a criteria to get increased representation in Loka. But then in democracy there is always give and take. The same southern states today are also advocating for and asking for that if we contribute more to tax revenue. If the southern states are contributing more to divisible pool of taxes, we should get more in return. But you are giving more in return to UP, Bihar and poorer states.

29:28 We want what is our contribution to the tax revenue? same contribution should be given back to us. This is where the southern states will have to give up on this claim as well because there has to be a give and take. If you are contributing more but who deserves more the poorer states such as UP, Bihar and some state Odisa and others. Long story short, we need a compact. We need a treaty now. treaty between the states and the union so that once and for all we will put an end to this populationbased political representation and tax contribution based share in federal resource here southern states

30:15 would be at an advantage here northern states would be an advantage and in democracy it's all all about give and take so this is formula or alternative number three alternative number one is go ahead with del limitation on the basis of population. Argument number two or alternative number two is status quo for the next 30 years. Alternative number three, freeze Lok Sabha forever and then have a contract between union and the states. Reform Rajya Sabha so that every state has equal representation in the council of states which reflects the position of the states in the parliament. and increase the number of seats in the

31:02 legislature or there can be fourth alternative no more delimitation neither at Lok Sabha nor at the state legislative assemblies. No. Why? Scholar Elasta McMillan he says in redistricting in comparative perspective he says between 2001 to 2026 the population of Uttar Pradesh has increased by 55.33%. Bihar by 51.4%. In contrast Tamil Nadu Maharashtra Karnataka we have seen 15.5% increase 28% 24.2% 2% increase respectively and if increase in the population

31:51 would lead to increase in the number of seats in legislative assembly as well in Lok Sabha as well then we are not going to see parliament or legislative assembly we are going to see a mea even if the number of representatives increase does that mean parliament will start functioning better or legislative assemblies will start functioning better. Do we see better quality of the laws passed by the parliament, better debate? That may not happen. Even if you increase the number of seats, will that lead to better framing of laws by the legislatures or better debates in the legislature? No. So then

32:37 why increase? On top of that, this increase is going to have several disadvantages. More MPs means more salary to them, more perks to them, which means more strain on the taxes that you and me pay. On top of that, we may see a bigger council of ministry because right now there's a limit that the total number of ministers at the union level or at the state level should not be more than 15% of the Lok Sabha or legislative assembly. Now if legislative assembly increases from 403 in UP to 803 that means 15% we double the number of ministers in UP we will see double the

33:24 ministers at the union level it is going to further drain our excheer it is going to put a further pressure on the taxes that you and me pay and we don't need it that is why the alternative is no further delimitation because the idea is the need of the yaba is to have a united India not a bigger parliament. So if a bigger parliament is going to draw a wedge between northern and southern states between Hindi and non-Hindis speaking states we don't need it. We need a united India not a bigger parliament. And even if you increase the number of seats, the representation in legislative assembly or Lok Sabha, it may not result in the good quality bills being passed in the parliament or the

34:09 state legis. Now there comes fifth alternative Kerala as a basis. If population is the basis on which we increase the number of seats. For example, there is a state which has seen population grow by 300%. And there is a state which has seen population increase by 68%. Which means if we have 543 as the strength of the Lok Sabha basis population increase it will become 1872 for example. There will be some states which will see a threefold jump in their representation

34:57 based on their population. But there will be some states which will see an increase but not massively 300% 400% only 68%. Then what we can do? We can have a basis and basis can be Kerala. Why Kerala? Because since 1971 the population of Kerala we can treat it as a model state has seen an increase of 68%. What does that mean? That means instead of increasing the number of seats bases the population every state should see an increase but only 68% increase because this is the lowest increase that

35:44 we have seen in Kerala to increase the Lok Sabha by 68% which means more than 900 seats every state will see an increase by 68% % regardless of what is the percentage of increase in your population whether it is 200 300 500,000 doesn't matter you will see a 68% increase the UP will see a 68% increase Tamil Nadu will see a 68% increase Kerala will see a 68% increase so every state in India will see an increase 68% increase and that is the model ideal per adjustment that we can see in l overall seat will increase to close to 912 but every state will see an increase

36:32 and on the basis of a percentage that we see reflective in Kerala because Kerala can be viewed as an ideal state which has seen the lowest population growth since 1971. These are the five alternative. Which of these alternatives do you consider best or more suitable? Do let me know in the comment section. or if you have a better alternative, an innovative alternative, do let me know as well. Lastly, if delimitation takes place, which I'm sure will take place because the home minister also has said that when the delimitation will be conducted, we will ensure that southern states will not lose their seats.

37:19 the award given by delimitation commission because to carry out delimitation we need a delimitation commission and the award given by this delimitation commission cannot be challenged in any court of law that is mentioned in the constitute. So to carry out delimitation a delimitation commission has to be set up which will be headed by the former judge of the supreme court. Election commissioners will be part of it and whatever they decide is final. Finding cannot be challenged in any court of law. But we have also seen the allegations where institutions allegedly have been compromised. They're siding with the executive. If this delimitation commission gives an

38:05 award which is blatantly against southern states or for that matter any particular state, can the Supreme Court interfere? Because on one hand constitution is clear that the award of the delimitation commission cannot be challenged in any court of law. Supreme Court may interfere. Why? Because right from Manurva Mills case in 1980 where Supreme Court said judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Indian constit. Judicial review has emerged as one of the most important basic structures and anything can be reviewed by the judiciary including the award of the delimitation committee and this is something that Supreme Court said in Kishor Chandra

38:53 Changalal Ratur versus Union of India in 2024 where very briefly some seats were given to SC's which should have been given to STS or there wasn't a fair allocation of seats in Gujarat. Meet went to the court and the Supreme Court said the award of the delimitation commission can be challenged on the grounds if that award is manifestly arbitrary without any logic is irreconcilable to our constitutional values of justice dignity. So if tomorrow delimitation commission gives an award which is

39:38 arbitrary or against the foundational constitutional values in challenge it in the Supreme Court. These are the five alternatives and what if the Supreme Court and should the Supreme Court or will Supreme Court interfere in delimitation exercises and this is the video that you needed to watch to understand delimitation. And if you like this video, do press the like button and subscribe to our channel if you haven't yet. Bye-bye. Take care.