Aayushka Pandey and Shashank Saini
Introduction
Haryana’s recent assembly polls showcased an intense BJP-INC head-to-head fight, ending in BJP’s historic third term with unprecedented margins. Beyond the political outcomes, the elections spotlighted concerns over the efficacy of the delimitation process, its implications for India’s electoral democracy and how the Haryana elections can be a micro-level illustration of pan-India fallouts post ‘2026 Delimitation’ exercise. The Haryana assembly election underscores the disparities inherent in India’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, where narrow vote-share gaps can translate into significant seat differences due to uneven population densities across constituencies. This article delves into India’s delimitation history, analyzing vote-share and seat-distribution disparities using Haryana as a case study. Referencing the Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod judgment, it highlights the need for equitable benchmarks and concludes with a call for an autonomous Delimitation Commission and robust grievance mechanisms to ensure fair representation.
Understanding the Background
To begin with, ‘Delimitation’ can be understood as an essential electoral exercise to divide and distribute the population of a country or state into several constituencies by fixing and limiting the boundaries, so that the population of the constituency is rightly represented in a democratic system. In India, delimitation is mandated by Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution, empowering the Parliament to adjust seat allocation after every census. The Delimitation Act, enacted by Parliament, established an independent Delimitation Commission to carry out this task with minimal interference from the three branches of government. Delimitation exercises took place in 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002 under respective statutes.
However, in 1976, the government imposed a freeze on the number of seats in Parliament until 2001, aiming to encourage population control measures. In 2002, the freeze was extended again until 2026, resulting in the number of seats being based on the 1971 census, while constituencies were delimited according to the 2001 census. Consequently, states that successfully implemented population control policies received fewer seats in Parliament, while those with higher populations gained more seats, creating a noticeable disparity between northern and southern states The major intention of the freeze of 1976 upon Lok Sabha seats as stated earlier was to promote population control.
With next census and 2026 Delimitation being around the corner, the apprehensions of a maturing and deepening North-South conundrum echo all over the different spheres of the political society in the country, and according to the authors not wrongly so. For instance, the states in South India, by all measures targeted at population control were able to reach the Total Fertility Rate (TFR )level below replacement level and showed a declining population growth as compared to the states in the North which might act as a bane rather than a boon for the states in terms of parliamentary seats. If the in accordance with the data of the 2011 census number of seats in the Indian Parliament rises from 543 to 753 seats, the newly delimited constituencies would mean an addition of seats to the states of Northern India, particularly to large states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, which can go about from current 174 to 284 seats. This will be in contra to the conditions of southern states, where Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Telangana, and Karnataka combined will gain only 14 seats moving from 129 to 143 seats in Lok Sabha.
In the largely politically polarized country, these regional seat disparities can favor some parties while marginalizing others, sparking debates ahead of the 2026 Delimitation. This emerges as a major issue that looms over the 2026 Delimitation that has brought a number of political leaders into heated debates with the southern states feeling betrayed for their development initiatives, and further disincentivizing any such attempts. The apprehension of betrayal can be assumed from several opposition leaders bringing in comments against this purported snatching away of political representation from Southern states, with instances like, Jairam Ramesh, being worried about, “Southern states being penalized for their success in family planning”, and Andhra Pradesh CM Naidu pondering over bringing a legislation to encourage child births against the contemporary concept of family planning.
Election Math: The Haryana Elections and Its Lessons
Another issue with delimitation relates to the representation of people in different constituencies, and we can understand it by reverting to what happened in Haryana. In the assembly elections, BJP secured its third consecutive term by winning 48 seats out of the 90 total seats, whereas INC won 37 seats. However, the vote share difference between the two major parties was marginal i.e., BJP secured 39.94% and Congress 39.09%, showing a slim gap in voter share and support. Despite this slim gap, the BJP achieved a significant and majority seats advantage. This seat difference and vote share difference is an example of how first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral systems, like in our country, increase the winning party’s seat even with the marginal vote differences.
The seat and vote share disparity in FPTP electoral systems arises from the “winner-takes-all” mechanism, where a candidate only needs a plurality of votes to win a constituency, regardless of the overall voter distribution. This issue becomes more striking due to uneven geographical distribution of support. This distorts representation, overstates mandates, and underrepresents minorities’ often misaligning governance with voter preferences.
These Haryana Election results highlight the importance of proper delimitation exercise to potentially reshape the political landscape by redrawing constituencies to better reflect demographic shifts. The Delimitation in Haryana failed to account for demographic disparities between constituencies. For instance, Narnaul in Mahendragarh, the smallest constituency, had just 1.58 lakh registered voters, while Badshahpur in Gurgaon, the largest, had around 5.2 lakh voters, followed by Gurgaon with 4.4 lakh voters. Despite such vast differences in voter populations, all constituencies have equal representation in the Assembly, undermining the principle of “One person, One vote, One value”.
A properly conducted delimitation exercise ensures and reflects equal voting power by ensuring that each vote in different constituencies carries similar weight. The slim vote share difference between the major two parties reflects that some constituencies may be over-represented, while others may be underrepresented. In several constituencies, Congress secured larger vote margins, such as Ferozepur Jhirka (98,000) and Garhi Sampla-Kiloi (70,000), compared to BJP wins. However, the slim vote share difference between the parties did not translate into proportional seat share for Congress, partly due to vote splits from independent rebel candidates. For example, in Dabwali, INLD defeated Congress by just 610 votes. While BJP also secured significant margins, none were as large as Congress’s. Notably, BJP’s smallest margin was only 32 votes in Uchana Kalan. This indicates over-representation in some constituencies, where Congress votes were not reflected in seat allocation.
Therefore, the slim vote share difference can be seen as an over-representation of some constituencies ithin the Assembly as the huge number of votes casted for Congress leaders in this election could not be translated into the representation of voters in the Assembly. This discrepancy occurs when the population density varies widely between the constituencies which lead to unequal voting power. The next delimitation exercise will be crucial in addressing these representation imbalances.
Contradictions Unfolded: A Dive into Delimitation Dilemmas
Interestingly, the two issues that have been highlighted may be contradictory to each other, but practically speaking, both hold equal importance in our electoral democracy. For 2026 Delimitation, the authorities will have to walk a tightrope to balance the interests of everyone to ensure that the division of North-South does not deepen further and southern states do not end up with dismal attention because of their lesser populations. Also, it becomes an important task to ensure that what happened in Haryana does not get imitated in the pan-India elections and that the voters in different constituencies are equally represented. Therefore, this formulates the importance of a proper delimitation process to be carried out in 2026, with high stakes in focus.
This, however, does not end the discourse as the topic has recently seen significant developments within the Indian jurisprudence. For a brief background, it is known that when the Delimitation Act was being discussed in the Indian Parliament, the scope of interference of the judiciary in such disputes was discouraged, and it led to the addition of similar clauses within the statute. The Constitution also limited the questionability of election-related disputes, under Article 329, with the purpose of not delaying the elections unnecessarily. Delimitation thus, was also characterized by its non-challengeable nature. This, however, contrasted our framework with those of other countries like the USA, UK and Canada, where the judiciary had opened the roadblock to the questionability of delimitation activity when it was grossly unfair and against the basic rights of the individuals. In the UK, R. v. Boundary Commission for England allowed challenges to delimitation but did not find grounds to reverse the Commission’s order. In the US, Baker v. Carr enabled voters to challenge redistricting, with further rulings protecting against race and party-based discrimination. In Canada, Dixon v. Attorney General of British Columbia affirmed the justifiability of fairness in constituency distribution.
Kishorechandra Order: A Double-Edged Sword for Constitutional Governance
In August 2024, the Supreme Court of India, in an effort to align itself with leading democracies around the world, delivered a landmark judgment in Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India. This ruling granted the right to challenge the delimitation process, thereby diluting its historically non-challengeable nature. The judgment, where Petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court contesting delimitation process that led to reservation of Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency in Gujarat for Scheduled Caste community, and the same being dismissed by the High Court stating Art. 329(a) of the Constitution which bars judicial interference in electoral matters, for e.g., delimitation orders. The judgment of the Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of High Court and effectively provided that if political parties or citizens feel that the 2026 Delimitation does not fairly reflect the population distribution, they can challenge the process in court on grounds of arbitrariness or violations of constitutional principles, such as equal voting power. The Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for such arguments to be heard in court, potentially leading to a redrawing of constituencies or providing remedies to better reflect demographic realities. If future delimitation exercises fail to address these imbalances in any such areas in the country, affected parties could invoke this judgment to challenge the process as arbitrary or unconstitutional. The author views the judgment as a positive step in the country’s electoral discourse, but there is not much to celebrate.
As the 2026 Delimitation exercise approaches, the judgment reinforces the need for transparent, fair, and constitutionally compliant constituency boundaries to avoid further electoral distortions in states like Haryana, where demographic shifts may otherwise result in unequal representation. From a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court’s judgment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it introduces a much-needed judicial overview to safeguard constitutional values like political equality and fair representation, especially when the Delimitation Commission’s decisions evidently violate constitutional rights or are arbitrary. On the other hand, the absence of clear criteria for what constitutes arbitrariness makes the judgment potentially prone to misuse, possibly resulting in various legal issues that undermine the autonomy of the delimitation process and potentially disturb the separation of powers.
To prevent the misuse of judicial review, the courts must develop consistent standards for determining what constitutes arbitrariness in delimitation exercises given the next delimitation exercise is just around the corner. Without such standards, the judgment risks destabilizing the very electoral system it aims to protect. To construct it into a more positive evolution of jurisprudence the Court must highlight uniform standards to be followed in such cases, that could include a reference to the concept of Reasonable classification under Art. 14 to determine arbitrariness, furthermore, for post-election delimitation disputes, one approach can be to prima facie examine “vote share to seat ratio” for admissibility of petition, to uphold the very purpose of delimitation, i.e., proper representation, as an analysis of disparity. Also, the Court can add standards developed in foreign jurisdictions (like USA, UK, Canada), with regards to Judicial review of delimitation, to further evolve the jurisprudence.
Conclusion: Judicial Oversight and Electoral Efficiency in Delimitation
Delimitation being a quintessential component of democracy needs to be balanced with the requirements of time, for instance the misrepresentation accrued by delimitation in Southern states can be an apt example of misbalance in achieving the objectives of delimitation. Although we have a constitutional scheme of “Checks and balances” and “Right to Appeal”, however, for a long time the doors of judiciary were closed for the citizens to challenge the orders of Delimitation Commission. With a recent development, Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod judgment introduces judicial oversight in delimitation, emphasizing fairness and political equality. However, its impact could be hindered by prolonged litigation, potentially delaying electoral processes and destabilizing governance. To prevent this, clear standards must be set to avoid arbitrariness, while maintaining the Delimitation Commission’s independence and ensuring transparency and effective grievance redressal.
Aayushka Pandey is a third year & Shashank Saini is a secind year at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.
Image Credit: Getty Images
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment