The proposed delimitation exercise, tied to the implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act, has emerged as a major point of contention between the Centre and several southern states. The core concern from the South is that a population-based redistribution of parliamentary seats could reduce their relative representation and political influence. However, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya has argued that these fears are misplaced, asserting that the government’s approach would actually benefit all states, including those in the South.
Speaking during the parliamentary debate, Surya claimed that the opposition was creating unnecessary apprehension among southern states. He stated that the Centre intends to increase the number of Lok Sabha seats for every state uniformly by about 50%, rather than redistributing them purely on the basis of population growth. According to him, this proportional expansion would ensure that states which have successfully controlled their population are not penalised.
The controversy largely revolves around the Delimitation Bill, one of three bills introduced to operationalise 33% reservation for women in Parliament and state assemblies. The bill proposes setting up a Delimitation Commission to redraw constituency boundaries based on census data, with the total strength of the Lok Sabha increasing from 543 to 850 seats. Out of these, 815 would represent states and 35 would be allocated to Union Territories, with 273 seats reserved for women.
Southern states have expressed concern that if delimitation strictly follows population figures—especially using more recent data—it could favour northern states where population growth has been higher. This could potentially reduce the South’s share in Parliament, weaken its influence in national decision-making, and even impact financial allocations such as tax devolution.
To address these concerns, Surya emphasised that the delimitation process would follow constitutional provisions, particularly Article 81(2), and that a proportional increase in seats across all states is the most practical and fair approach. Under this model, each state would retain roughly the same share of seats as it currently has, but with an overall increase in numbers.
For example, Tamil Nadu currently holds 39 Lok Sabha seats, accounting for about 7.2% of the total. Under a 50% increase model, its representation would rise to around 59 seats while maintaining the same proportion. Similarly, Kerala’s current 20 seats would increase to about 30, compared to a smaller rise if based strictly on population data.
Andhra Pradesh, which presently has 25 seats, would see its tally rise to around 37 under the proportional model, compared to 33 under a population-based calculation. Odisha’s representation would increase from 21 to approximately 31 seats, while Telangana would move from 17 to about 25 seats—slightly higher than what a census-only approach might yield.
Karnataka, with 28 seats at present, would also benefit, rising to around 42 seats under the 50% formula, marginally higher than estimates based purely on population.
Through this approach, the government aims to balance the need for expanding representation with concerns about regional equity. While opposition parties and several southern leaders remain sceptical, the proposed proportional increase is being positioned by the Centre as a way to ensure that no state loses its existing share of influence even as the total number of seats grows.
