NEWS
ANALYSIS
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAMPAIGN TRAIL
ISSUES
GALLERY
MANIFESTOS
INDIA SPEAKS!
DISCUSSION GROUP
CHAT
PREVIOUS RESULTS

The Rediff Election Specials/ K C Sivaramakrishnan

Time for Change

The price paid for the freeze on delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies has been the disproportionately large size of the electorate in several constituencies, particularly in the urban areas. Nor is the disparity limited to urban and non-urban constituencies. In some cases it has occurred among different urban constituencies within the same state. Such disparity is particularly glaring and unacceptable when it occurs in adjoining constituencies.

The principle of equality in franchise is fundamental to any electoral system. One citizen's vote should have as much weight as that of any other person: no more, no less. Similarly, a vote in one constituency should have as much value as in another. Article 81 of the Constitution stipulates that the number of seats in the Lok Sabha in each state "shall be determined in such a manner that the ratio between the number and population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all states". This means that elected MPs should represent constituencies whose population is similar in size as far as possible.

Article 170(2) of the Constitution also enjoins that "each state will be divided into territorial constituencies in such a manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the state". In other words, broad parity between the states and similarity in the size of the territorial constituencies within the state are envisaged in the Constitution.

Anticipating that changes in the population would affect this parity, the Constitution makers further provided in Article 81 (3) that the expression "population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census". It was clearly stipulated in Article 82 that upon completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha and the division of each state into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority as Parliament may by law determine. In regard to assemblies, the same principles as envisaged for the Lok Sabha are contained in Article 172 and 173 of the Constitution.

Though parliaments are regarded as the most important representative elements in a democratic structure, in many countries, the procedure and machinery for the delimitation of constituencies which are the building blocks of these parliaments are left to be decided by their own laws rather than being provided for in the constitution itself. Pundits of constitutional law like Ivor Jennings among others, have wondered about this oddity which has given rise to distortions and manipulations of one kind or another including the infamous American practice of gerrymandering.

In the case of India the draft Constitution did make an attempt to ensure that one Lok Sabha representative would be available for every 750,000 people and not more than one for every 500,000 people. However, this reference to the population size of a territorial constituency was omitted in the final version of the Constitution.

Delimitation in the Past

The initial delimitation exercise was carried out under the Representation of People Act, 1950. In 1952 and independent Delimitation Commission, more or less judicial in composition, was set up to readjust areas of constituencies on the basis of the 1951 Census figures. The work of this Delimitation Commission was completed in 1955 but the scheme of things had to be revised in view of the States Reorganization Act, in regard to some constituencies.

The 1963 Delimitation Commission set up after the third general elections, increased the size of the Lok Sabha from 481 to 490. After the 1971 Census another delimitation exercise was taken up and completed in 1975 which took the total number of elected seats in the Lok Sabha to 543 and in the assemblies to 3,997.

The present position of allocation of seats to the different states should be explained at this stage. Out of the total strength of 545 seats, prevailing then (including two to be nominated) 36 were allocated to the smaller states with a population of 6 million or less such as Meghalaya, Mizoram, Goa, Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep, etc. The balance of 507 seats was allocated among the remaining 15 major states which as per the 1971 Census had a total population of 529.374 million. By dividing this figure by 507, an average of 104.4 million were obtained. This average was applied to the population of each state.

UP which had a 1971 population of 88.34 million got 85 seats, Tamil Nadu with a population of 41.1 million got 39 seats, Maharashtra 48 and so on. As can be seen the seat-population ratio among the states was about the same. It was expected that the allocation would be reviewed and modified after each census.

Table 1: Population: Lok Sabha Seat Ratio

Sl No	State	Population as Per 1971 Census (in lakhs)	Number of Seats Allocated	Ratio of Population Per Seat 1971	Population as in 1991 Census (in lakhs)	Lucky Number of seats for this size population by apply the 15 state average ratio
1	Andhra Pradesh	435.03	42	10.36	663.55	42
2	Assam	149.57	14	10.68	222.94	14
3	Bihar	563.53	54	10.43	863.39	54
4	Gujarat	266.97	26	10.27	411.74	26
5	Haryana	100.36	10	10.04	163.18	10
6	Karnataka	292.99	28	10.46	448.06	28
7	Kerala	213.47	20	10.67	290.33	18
8	Madhya Pradesh	416.54	40	10.41	661.36	41
9	Maharashtra	504.12	48	10.50	787.48	49
10	Orissa	219.44	21	10.45	315.12	20
11	Punjab	135.51	13	10.42	201.91	13
12	Rajasthan	257.65	25	10.31	438.81	27
13	Tamil Nadu	411.99	39	10.56	556.38	35
14	Uttar Pradesh	883.41	85	10.39	1390.31	87
15	West Bengal	443.12	42	10.55	679.83	43

Notes:

1. Ratio of population per seat for 15 states as per 1991 Census is 15.97.

2. The total number of seats allocated for the 15 states is assumed to be unchanged.

Disparity stands out as a prominent feature

Reproduced from the Economic and Political Weekly, with their kind permission.

The Rediff Election Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature