That shift has alarmed opposition parties – especially in the south – who fear it could cost them seats and influence, effectively penalising regions with lower population growth and stronger economies.
The five southern states – Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Telangana – account for about 20% of India’s 1.4 billion people.
They also outperform the rest of the country in health, education and economic prospects. A child is less likely to be born here than in the north, due to lower population growth rates.
Their leaders are worried that the more prosperous south may lose parliamentary seats in the future, a “punishment” for having fewer children and generating more wealth.
Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Telangana had sought to extend the freeze on seat redistribution for 25 years.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has called the delimitation plan a “massive historic injustice,”, external with his ruling DMK party calling statewide black-flag protests on Thursday.
“Is punishment being meted out to Tamil Nadu and the southern states for the crime of striving for India’s growth?” he asked.
The proposed legislation also remains mired in some confusion, say experts.
Arghya Sengupta of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a Delhi-based think tank, told the BBC that although the new bill raises the cap on the lower house of parliament to 850 seats – from 550 earlier – the “basis for this number is unclear and does not appear to be proportionate to population growth recorded in the 1971 and 2011 census”.
Oddly, Sengupta says, there is no similar expansion for state assemblies, “creating a mismatch: fast-growing states could gain more MPs without a corresponding rise in MLAs”.
There are also concerns about how seats will be shared between states.
BJP MP K Laxman has told reporters the government plans to carry out delimitation on a “pro-rata” basis to ensure no state – especially in the south – is disadvantaged.
This means each state’s seats would rise in proportion to its current share.
But experts remain unconvinced.
“While no state may lose seats, the absence of a clear proportional formula means outcomes could vary – and favour more populous states. This has significant federal implications,” says Sengupta.
