Delimitation must not create a hierarchy of States or concentrate power in a few regions. It must reinforce the idea that India’s strength lies in the balanced partnership of all its States, large and small.
By Lakpachui Siro
The proposed Pan-India Delimitation Exercise is among the most consequential constitutional processes India will undertake in the coming years. While delimitation is often viewed as a technical adjustment of electoral boundaries, in reality it is a defining exercise that reshapes political power, federal balance, and the character of representative democracy itself. The manner in which this exercise is conducted will determine whether India strengthens its federal foundations or gradually centralises authority in the hands of a few populous regions.
At the heart of the current debate lies the question of population. Population has undeniable relevance in a democracy, and it rightly forms the basis of representation in the Lok Sabha. However, population alone cannot become the sole determinant of political power in a country as large, diverse, and asymmetrical as India. The Constitution deliberately created a bicameral Parliament to balance popular representation with the representation of States. Any delimitation process that allows population to dominate both Houses risks undermining this carefully designed equilibrium.
The Northeast occupies a unique place within this constitutional framework. It is a region characterised by small and uneven populations, difficult mountainous terrain, limited connectivity, extraordinary ethnic and linguistic diversity, and extensive international borders. Members of Parliament from the Northeast often represent vast and inaccessible territories, multiple tribal communities, and strategically sensitive border areas. Treating such regions on the same footing as densely populated plains, through a uniform population-based formula, may satisfy numerical equality but fails the test of substantive representation.
In the context of Lok Sabha delimitation, the Northeast does not reject population as a guiding principle. Rather, it argues that population must be complemented by constitutionally relevant considerations such as geography, terrain, accessibility, and strategic sensitivity. Effective representation cannot be reduced to headcount alone. It is therefore imperative that minimum Lok Sabha seats for each Northeastern States be fixed as a minimum baseline, ensuring that no State is penalised for demographic stability, geographical constraints, or its contribution to national security and integration.
The case for differentiated treatment becomes even stronger in the delimitation of State Legislative Assemblies. In the Northeastern States, particularly in tribal and hill areas, strict population parity is neither practical nor democratic. Large and unwieldy constituencies dilute the voice of communities and weaken accountability. The Constitution already recognises this reality through the Sixth Schedule and special provisions for tribal areas. Assembly delimitation in the Northeast must therefore prioritise geography, ethnicity, and administrative viability over mechanical population ratios.
The most critical dimension of the delimitation debate, however, concerns the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha was conceived as the Council of States, a federal safeguard meant to balance the population-dominated Lok Sabha. Its purpose is not to mirror the lower House but to ensure that every State, irrespective of size, retains a meaningful voice in national legislation. If the composition of the Rajya Sabha is increasingly determined by population alone, the distinction between the two Houses collapses, and federalism is reduced to symbolism.
Such an outcome would have serious consequences. A small number of large States could effectively control both Houses of Parliament, leaving smaller States structurally marginalised. This would weaken cooperative federalism and erode the confidence of border and peripheral regions in the Union. For a country as diverse as India, this is neither sustainable nor desirable.
To preserve the federal character of Parliament, a minimum baseline of representation in the Rajya Sabha is essential. Guaranteeing a fixed minimum number of Rajya Sabha seats—such as five seats per State—irrespective of population, would ensure that every State remains an active participant in national decision-making. Additional seats can still be allocated beyond this baseline based on population and geographical size, thereby balancing equity with federal integrity.
This approach is not without constitutional precedent. Article 164(1A), introduced by the 91st Constitutional Amendment, already allows differential treatment for smaller States by exempting them from uniform limits on the size of Councils of Ministers. This reflects a recognition that one-size-fits-all formulas do not always serve democratic functionality. Comparative federal systems offer similar lessons. In the United States, each State enjoys equal representation in the Senate, regardless of population, ensuring that federal balance is preserved even as population disparities grow.
For the Northeastern States, a guaranteed minimum in the Rajya Sabha would ensure that their strategic, cultural, and developmental concerns are not overshadowed. Collectively, such representation would enable the region to contribute more effectively to national debates, strengthening rather than fragmenting the Union.
Ultimately, this is not a regional plea but a national imperative. Delimitation must not create a hierarchy of States or concentrate power in a few regions. It must reinforce the idea that India’s strength lies in the balanced partnership of all its States, large and small. Protecting the voice of smaller States today is essential to preserving the unity, stability, and democratic legitimacy of the Indian Union tomorrow.
(Lakpachui Siro is a social and political commentator based in Ukhrul, Manipur.)