India’s democracy is in danger again – that is what opposition parties are saying as the Narendra Modi government tries to pass the Delimitation Bill, 2026, in a special three-day session of Parliament, sandwiched between two other bills.
The long-awaited exercise of redrawing constituencies and increasing the Lok Sabha’s strength from 543 to up to 850 seats, based on the 2011 Census, has opened a can of worms.
Parties including the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Shiv Sena (UBT), DMK, and the Left have flagged the BJP-led Centre's “rush” to pass The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026, The Delimitation Bill, 2026, and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, as one with a “deliberate lack of transparency” and “deceit”.
Experts say delimitation has always been an opaque process.
“The Centre maintains some element of transparency in the delimitation bill, as it includes provisions for the publication of the delimitation order,” Arghya Sengupta, Research Director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, told The Telegraph Online.
“But what remains to be seen is how it operates in practice. I remain sceptical because previous exercises have been largely opaque.”
The delimitation primer released by the Vidhi Centre states that no Delimitation Commission has ever disclosed any established apportionment methods such as Hamilton’s, Webster’s, or Jefferson’s methods, for the reapportionment of seats that are followed in the US.
"Much like the proposed increase in Lok Sabha seats to 850, the Commission’s procedure has been marked by opacity. How does it determine the reallocation of seats among the States? How are the constituency boundaries drawn? Mayuri Gupta, senior resident fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, asked.
The seven working papers of the 2002 Delimitation Commission, which laid out the methodology and conception of the last exercise, are not available in the public domain, Gupta told The Telegraph Online.
“We filed RTIs [right to information requests] with the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and the Election Commission, but got no clear response. How can anyone challenge the exercise if there is no information on what methodology is being used?”
The process is not only extremely complex but also subjective, Sengupta said.
“Whether West Bengal should have 42 or maybe 50 seats, or Maharashtra should have 45 or 55 seats, can be solved mathematically. However, once you establish the constitutional imperative that the population in each constituency should be the same, the problem becomes more complex.”
The real issue is how constituency lines will be redrawn, as endless logical reasoning can be applied to demarcating constituencies. There is no single right answer, and there cannot be any expert consensus on how each constituency will be demarcated because it is ultimately a political solution.
The redrawing of constituencies can also be intentionally done to favour a particular party, Sengupta explained.
For example, a political party which gets less votes in urban areas can club nearby rural areas as part of an urban constituency to get an advantage over a party which polls more votes in urban areas.
“Hence, the process has to be fair and transparent to be accepted. Given the overly politicised nature of our polity, no one can take this as a matter of blind faith,” Sengupta said.
South India’s loss in delimitation
The delimitation exercise has sparked concerns among the less populous southern states over the potential loss of political power to the densely populated Hindi-belt states.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah have assured that no state will lose seats.
Sengupta called this promise a straw man argument, as all states will see an increase in the number of MPs they can send to the Lok Sabha.
The Delimitation Commission, which is in charge of the exercise, is bound by the mandate of the 2011 Census, he pointed out: “What the government says is true — that the south won’t lose seats — but a discussion must be held on how southern states are compensated, because there is no doubt that the relative proportional increase in seats that the more populous states will enjoy will be significantly higher compared to the south. This will change the federal dynamic of the country.”
He referred to more transparent delimitation practices in other democracies, such as in America, where every state is guaranteed exactly two US senators regardless of its population.
Sengupta also agreed with Shashi Tharoor’s example of the European Parliament, where every member state has a minimum and maximum cap on representation to ensure that less populous states do not lose political power.
The fundamental concern around the delimitation bill is that unlike in the past — when the Delimitation Commission consisted of a retired Supreme Court judge, the chief election commissioner and the state election commissioner or their nominees — the new bill removes the broader structure and instead provides for a retired Supreme Court judge, the CEC, and only the election commissioner of the state when the state is concerned, Sengupta pointed out.
But it is not only the redrawing of constituencies within the state when a state is concerned but also the overall allocation of seats among states. There should be permanent state representation on the commission, much like is the case in the GST council, Sengupta said
A state’s concern over its political representation in the Lok Sabha does not end with its own increase in seats, he pointed out: “For example, if a delimitation exercise is being carried out in West Bengal, the state is just as concerned about how many seats Uttar Pradesh gets. This bill implies that there will be no state-wide representation in the Delimitation Commission.”
The debate shouldn’t be focused on women’s reservation but on delimitation as it is, he insisted. “Therefore, a Joint Parliamentary Committee should be set up, and the delimitation issue should be properly debated.”
Although the bill states associate members are to be nominated based on the composition of Parliament, Sengupta points out that the nomination process is unclear.
There is little to no guidance in previous delimitation Acts on the criteria that should govern the nomination of associate members by respective Speakers. This lack of clarity could result in a concentration of associate members from a single political party. Moreover, associate members do not have the right to vote or sign off on any decision of the Delimitation Commission.
“The delimitation exercise, as currently envisaged, is going to be fundamentally operated from New Delhi,” Sengupta said.