With the 2026 assembly elections approaching, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK leader M.K. Stalin has reignited a contentious debate—the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies. He has raised concerns that the process will unfairly benefit the northern states at the cost of the southern ones. But does this claim hold up under scrutiny, or is it a politically motivated fear campaign?
Delimitation is a process mandated by the Indian Constitution to redraw the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on population shifts. Historically, this has been done periodically, but in 1976, it was frozen to incentivize population control. The freeze is set to lift in 2026, necessitating a new delimitation exercise.
Currently, the five southern states—Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana—hold 129 Lok Sabha seats, while two major northern states, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, together have 120. With delimitation, the South’s representation is expected to increase to 165, while UP and Bihar’s combined seats may rise to 222. The argument that the South is being shortchanged is therefore not entirely accurate, as both regions stand to gain seats.
In 2026, the estimated population of India will be 1.42 billion, and this data will be crucial for delimitation, which redraws the boundaries of a constituency based on its population.
Based on those numbers, the Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka are expected to increase from 28 to 36 in 2026 – a jump of just eight seats. The number of seats in Telangana will rise from 17 to 20, Andhra Pradesh from 25 to 28, and Tamil Nadu from 39 to 41.
The case of Kerala, which has controlled population growth best, will be singular – the number of its Lok Sabha seats will drop from 20 to 19.
In contrast, the number of seats in Uttar Pradesh will go up from 80 to 128. The other northern states would also see significantly more representation.
Bihar, another state with a rapidly growing population, will have 70 seats instead of the current 40.
A major argument from the southern states is that they adhered to family planning norms, leading to slower population growth, while northern states, particularly UP and Bihar, saw rapid increases. Consequently, the South argues that it is being penalized for its success in population control. However, representation in a democracy is fundamentally based on population—more people necessitate more representation. Uttar Pradesh alone, with its population of over 25 crores, is comparable to multiple southern states combined. It is unrealistic to expect that the population boom in the North should not be reflected in parliamentary representation.
For decades, the North-South divide has been framed in economic and developmental terms, with the South perceived as more progressive and industrialized, while the North lagged in key indicators such as education, healthcare, and poverty reduction. However, this narrative is evolving. Over the past decade, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have made significant strides in infrastructure development, economic growth, and governance. To continue treating these states as economic backwaters ignores their progress.
The DMK’s opposition to delimitation seems to be less about representation and more about political survival. Stalin’s party has long thrived on an anti-Brahmin, anti-Hindi, and regional identity-based narrative. With increasing Hindu consolidation and a rising BJP vote share in Tamil Nadu, the DMK is facing political headwinds. Stalin’s call for a Joint Action Committee of MPs from southern states is an attempt to forge a regional alliance against the BJP-led Centre. However, it is worth noting that Home Minister Amit Shah has categorically assured that no South Indian state will lose Lok Sabha seats, though he has not clarified the basis for seat allocation.
Delimitation is an unavoidable exercise, as parliamentary representation must reflect demographic realities. The first Delimitation Commission in 1952 set the number of Lok Sabha seats at 494. The second in 1963 raised it to 522, and the third in 1973 increased it to 543 based on the 1971 census. The 1976 freeze on delimitation was an anomaly meant to be temporary, yet it was extended repeatedly. The southern states’ argument of historical ‘injustice’ due to population control is therefore flawed—representation must evolve with changing demographics.
Despite the need for delimitation, the South’s concerns about economic and political marginalization should not be dismissed outright. Southern states contribute more in taxes and have stronger economies, yet they fear that the increasing representation of northern states could shift policy priorities away from them. The challenge lies in balancing representation with equitable resource distribution.
Rather than resisting delimitation outright, southern leaders should negotiate for policy safeguards, such as ensuring that fiscal devolution accounts for population disparities. A well-balanced approach could prevent unnecessary political discord while upholding democratic principles.
The debate over delimitation is being framed by the DMK and other regional parties as an existential crisis for the South, but the numbers do not support such alarmism. All regions of India deserve fair representation based on population realities, and the Constitution mandates that delimitation must occur. Political leaders should focus on constructive engagement rather than fearmongering. Delimitation is not a threat to the South—it is a necessary step towards a more representative democracy.
