Lokesh to Tharoor on delimitation: ‘Expanding Lok Sabha a democratic necessity’

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

Andhra Pradesh IT and HRD Minister Nara Lokesh. File | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

He said that, without any intervention, a fresh delimitation based on the 2026 Census would see several southern States face a sizeable reduction in their share, and that the Congress party, through its opposition to the Bill, was responsible for it.

Dear Dr. Tharoor, a few points here. First, Article 81 envisages that seats in the Lok Sabha be allocated on the basis of population. The constitutional freeze linked to the 1971 Census was always temporary and was due to expire in 2026. In the absence of any intervention, a… https://t.co/1gmZb5pGGz

“India in 2026 is not India in 1971 as the population has grown from about 55 crore to nearly 146 crore,” he said. Lok Sabha membership had remained virtually unchanged, and the average MP now represented nearly 2.5 times as many citizens as an MP did when the freeze was imposed, he said.

Expanding the House was a democratic necessity, not a political choice, Mr. Lokesh said.

He said that if seats were increased to better reflect today’s population, retaining each State’s proportional share was a reasonable and balanced approach, as it protected States that had carried out population stabilisation while improving representation for all Indians.

Mr. Lokesh said it was worth remembering that no State had a constitutional right to greater representation per voter than another. The Constitution’s objective was the opposite, he said: that every citizen’s vote should carry, as nearly as practicable, equal weight.

“The continuation of the present proportional balance is not a constitutional entitlement, it is NDA’s way of ensuring that States that acted responsibly are not disadvantaged. As for your thought experiment, parliamentary influence ultimately flows from votes on the Floor of the House. Whether a simple or a two-thirds majority is required, a proportionate increase for all States leaves those equations unchanged. If everyone receives the sam