On October 16, 2026, Congress President and Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, seeking an all-party meeting to discuss the government’s delimitation proposals before they were finalised and introduced in Parliament. It was Mr. Kharge’s fourth letter since April seeking such a meeting. On October 19, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju replied, saying that the government had repeatedly sought the Congress’s cooperation, including through letters to Mr. Kharge in March and April and discussions with him and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi.
Mr. Rijiju also said that the government had held consultations with several other Opposition parties. Yet, his reply showed once again that the Centre had no intention of disclosing its precise proposals on delimitation. Without explicitly saying so, Mr. Rijiju’s letter suggested that the government planned to bring in legislation on delimitation while withholding the details, thereby preventing a possible public debate on the issue.
What the real debate is
Given the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s plans to move the legislation by stealth, one has to go by what is publicly available to examine the options before the BJP and the Opposition, particularly the Congress, on delimitation. Women’s reservation is an unnecessary distraction and fog in this debate. The issue is settled: one-third of the seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies will be reserved for women when the next delimitation takes place, regardless of the total number of seats. The real debate concerns the increase in the size of the Lok Sabha and how it is distributed among the States.
In April 2026, the government said that it would retain the current proportion of States in an enlarged Lok Sabha of up to 850 seats. The proposal would increase the cap on the number of Lok Sabha seats by more than 50%, translating into a corresponding increase in the number of seats in each State while maintaining their existing proportions.
Understanding the delimitation exercise | Explained
However, the government subsequently introduced Bills that required the distribution of Lok Sabha seats on the basis of the 2011 Census. It was a curious case of the government promising something and then pushing legislation that would render the implementation of that very promise unconstitutional, no less. Whether this was incompetence or duplicity, neither possibility was reassuring. The contradiction unravelled, and the Bills failed. One must now go by the BJP’s publicly stated position: which is to maintain the current proportion of individual States in an enlarged Lok Sabha of up to 850 seats. Implementing this position would require a constitutional amendment. This analysis assumes that what the BJP says and what it writes in the draft Bills will be the same, unlike the last time around.
The Congress is opposed to this position and has a counter-proposal. The Congress wants the current strength of 543 seats in the Lok Sabha, and their distribution among the States, to continue. This too requires a constitutional amendment, and hence, is dead on arrival. As it stands today, the Constitution requires Lok Sabha seats to be reallocated among States on the basis of the 2027 Census. The Congress currently considers the defeat of any BJP amendment as a success, regardless of the assured failure of its own proposal. But it needs to analyse more carefully what that would entail.
Comment | Revamp functioning of Parliament
The BJP’s expansion strategy
What could the BJP’s political calculation be? In the absence of a constitutional amendment, the 550 seats possible under the present provisions of the Constitution can be reallocated, to the huge advantage of the heartland States, and potentially, the BJP. That being the reality, why does the BJP strongly push for a larger Lok Sabha? The party wants to increase the number of seats and is even willing to continue with the relative disadvantage of the heartland States unaddressed. That needs an explanation.
The Congress and adjacent entities are opposed to an increase in the strength of the Lok Sabha. The argument is that even if the proportionate strength of each State is maintained, a larger Lok Sabha would widen the disparity in absolute numbers between them. Lok Sabha majorities are determined by absolute numbers and not proportions, it has been argued. For a majority in the Lok Sabha, you need 50% plus one vote for usual majorities; for special majorities, two-thirds is needed. If current proportions are maintained, every State will retain its current relative strength in determining a Lok Sabha majority, and its influence in national politics.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is willing to support delimitation that maintains the current proportion, regardless of the total numbers. But the party wants clarity on how that will be legislated. The Centre is tightlipped and Mr. Rijiju’s latest letter avoids any mention of this. The increase in absolute numbers while maintaining the proportion does not bring evident advantages for the BJP.
So, what might the BJP be calculating? A possibility is that the BJP is wise enough to decipher that pushing peninsular India into further marginalisation is not helpful for national integration or for its own ambition to be a truly national party that has legitimacy in all parts of the country. Therefore, it is willing to keep the proportion intact in exchange for a significant spike in absolute numbers for more populated States.
A second reason is a publicly stated one: the implementation of the women’s quota can be done without impacting the existing male members, by adding 50% more seats. Some see a conspiracy to gerrymander constituency borders before the next general election. Another reason is that as demands for caste-based representation grow, expanding the Lok Sabha would create more room to accommodate competing claims. This is particularly relevant considering the BJP’s focus on social engineering. The bigger the numbers, the easier it will be for the BJP in its social engineering.
The BJP is in a win-win situation as far as delimitation is concerned. If it manages to pass the amendment, it will have additional seats to play around with in its social engineering. If it cannot pass an amendment, a larger proportion of the existing seats will shift to its strongholds, while keeping its alleged gerrymandering plans equally viable. Any increase, if at all, in the probability of a national BJP majority through delimitation is linked to the reallocation of the seats, and not to an increase in the total number of seats while retaining the current proportion.
The Congress’s difficult choices
Where does that leave the Congress? The Congress assumes success in preventing a BJP amendment. It must know that it has no viable path to keeping both the current strength and the shares of individual States intact. The only two options are: first, the number of Lok Sabha seats increases, but the individual share of States remains unchanged through a constitutional amendment, as the BJP says but has not written in a draft legislation. Second, the number of seats does not increase, but the existing seats get reallocated on the basis of the latest Census, leading to a massive slash in the representation of Keralam, Tamil Nadu and other States in similar positions both as absolute numbers and proportion. The BJP will blame the Congress and the Left, if the second option plays out, while reaping the advantage of the additional share in the heartland. The BJP has two good options from its vantage point; the Congress has two bad options to choose from, from its vantage point.
varghese.g@thehindu.co.in