India · Monsoon Session · Delimitation 2026 sujith.blog

Flat 50% in the Centre. Proportional within the State.

Firstly, the federal identity of a state must be preserved, keeping census aside at national level seat distribution. The same census must then be used to ensure each state normalises its population growth across its newly allocated seats. Finally, the timeline of delimitation is just as important as the method, so every political party contests the 2029 general elections on a level playing field. Political parties, local leaders, and most importantly, the voters themselves, need adequate time to understand their new constituencies, shifting local demographics, and altered district lines.

↓ Download PDF
Sujith Kumar Reddy N
Data Scientist · naisasujith@gmail.com
A hard problem, conflated — and a cleaner way to separate it.

When the 131st Amendment did not secure passage in April, it was easy to read it as a defeat. It is more instructive to read it as a diagnosis. The drafters had set themselves a genuinely difficult task — expanding the House to 850 seats while assuring the Southern states that decades of population stabilisation would not quietly cost them their political voice. The Bill faltered not on ambition, but on a conflation: it tried to answer two very different democratic questions with a single rule.

Two requirements, not one

Balancing power between states and ensuring the equality of voters within a state are different problems with different answers. Much of the friction in April came from treating them as the same one. Separating them is the most practical path forward — and, it turns out, the simplest.

Why a modern census strains the balance between states

It is understandable that the drafters leaned toward proportionality: tying seats to a national census looks like the most straightforward democratic metric. But applied strictly between states, it unintentionally penalises the states that managed their growth responsibly. The South holds about 23.8% of seats today but closer to 20.7% of the 2011 population — a margin the freeze granted deliberately. A modern census, recording the South thinner still, would pull that representation down further. The intention was a unified national model; the difficulty is that a strictly census-driven split between states works against the federal compact.

Between states, balance the weight. Within a state, equalise the vote.

A flat expansion holds the promise

The most durable way to grow the House without disturbing that balance is to step away from national proportionality between states and simply raise every state's seats by the same factor. Multiply each state's current count by 1.5 and the relative weight of every state stays exactly where it is today. It honours the commitment to expand the South's representation — from 129 to roughly 194 — and writes that assurance into the framework itself, rather than leaving it to future negotiation. For the Telugu states, Andhra Pradesh moves from 25 to 38 and Telangana from 17 to 26.

That is the whole idea in a line: flat 50% in the Centre, proportional within the State. Once a state's total is secured at the federal level, the question turns inward — and there, equal population per seat should lead. The next tabs walk through both halves: the Centre that holds the South whole, then Andhra Pradesh and Telangana distributing their seats equitably within, on a basis transparent enough for any citizen to verify.

The Math — every step you can re-derive

Two rules do all the work. Between states, a flat multiplier that touches no one's relative weight. Inside a state, a fixed quota and whole-district allocation by the largest-remainder method — figures any voter can rebuild from the published Census. The arithmetic is deliberately plain; a rule you can check is a map you can trust.

The equations

Vertical · the Centre
Sinew=⌈1.5 · Sinow⌉
Every state's seats scale by the same factor. Relative weight is invariant to the census.
Quota
Q=PS
State population P divided by its allocated seats S — the target every seat is drawn toward.
Raw entitlement
ed=pdQ,bd = ⌊ed⌋
District d's population over the quota; the whole part b is its guaranteed seats.
Largest remainder (Hamilton)
R = S − Σ bd→top R by rd = ed − bd
The leftover R seats go to the districts with the largest fractional remainders r.
Per-seat & deviation
πd = pdsd,δd = πd − QQ
How many people each seat carries, and its signed gap from the quota — the table's deviation bars.
Parity ratio
D=max πdmin πd
Widest seat-weight gap in the state. AP = 1.31:1, TS = 1.40:1 — versus 3.3:1 for turnout models.

Step 1 — Set the quota

Divide each state's 2011 Census population by its post-expansion seat count. That single number is the target size every seat is drawn toward.

AP: 4,93,86,799 ÷ 38 ≈ 13.00 L / seat
TS: 3,51,90,477 ÷ 25 ≈ 14.08 L / seat

Step 2 — Allocate by largest remainder

Each district's population ÷ quota gives its raw entitlement. Districts first receive the whole-number part; the leftover seats go to the districts with the largest fractional remainders. No district is split below the quota by design.

Equal-Elector vs. turnout-weighted models

Equal-Elector · 2011 Census
—
Widest gap between any two seats, AP & TS. Caused by rounding whole districts; it tightens further once constituencies are drawn within districts to the quota.
Turnout-weighted predictive model
~3.3 : 1
Vote-weight gap reported in close reading of EAC-PM Working Paper 50/2026-style allocations — a voter in a freshly split urban seat outweighing a "frozen" rural one by design.

Why 25 seats for Telangana, not 26

17 × 1.5 = 25.5 sits exactly on the rounding boundary. Allocating 25 yields a tighter intra-state parity (≈1.40:1) than 26 (≈1.49:1), because 26 over-rewards a single large district while leaving others short. The lower count is the more equal outcome — so the floor is also the principled choice.

A note on granularity

Seats are allocated to 2011-era districts — the cleanest unit that maps to verifiable census totals. Within a district, individual constituencies are then drawn to the same state quota, which is what pulls every seat toward 1:1. The district view is the transparent first cut, not the last word.

Why this survives the 2027 census

The danger in delimitation is inter-state: a fresh census records the South as a smaller share than the last, so a population-proportional reallocation moves seats north — and a 2027 count does so more sharply than 2011 would. A flat 50% expansion is invariant to that. It scales every state equally, so relative weight holds whichever census is used. The Equal-Elector Plan then governs only the harmless, horizontal cut inside each state.

Cross-check on 2025 ECI rolls — AP: 4,12,97,733 electors ÷ 38 ≈ 10.87 L / seat. Same answer, newer data.

Sources & method. Population: Census of India 2011 — district totals for the 23 districts of undivided Andhra Pradesh (AP residuary 4,93,86,799; Telangana 3,51,90,477); five southern states 20.7% of the national population. Seat counts: uniform 50% expansion of current Lok Sabha allocation. Intra-state allocation: Hamilton / largest-remainder; Share = district ÷ state population. Boundaries: 2011-vintage district geometry (GADM). Inter-state context: the South holds ~23.8% of seats today; a 2011-Census reapportionment yields it ~168 of an expanded House (~20.7% share), and newer projections push it lower still (≈103 of 543 on some estimates). 131st Amendment: introduced 16 Apr 2026, defeated 17 Apr 2026 (298–230, 54 short of two-thirds). 2025 cross-check: ECI rolls, AP 4,12,97,733 electors. Figures illustrate a flat-expansion scenario and are not an official notification. — sujith.blog

One quota inside. One multiplier between.

The delimitation question looks like one argument. It is really two, with different answers — and treating them as one is what made April so difficult. Separating them is the practical way through.

Between states — set proportionality aside

Strict population-proportionality between states unintentionally disadvantages the South for a demographic achievement the freeze once rewarded. On 2011 data its share slips from ~23.8% to ~20.7%; a newer census widens that gap further. A flat 50% multiplier is the one mechanism that is invariant to the census — it holds every state's relative weight whatever the count says.

Inside a state — let equality lead

Once a state's total is fixed, there is no federal balance left to protect. Here equal population per seat is simply the fair principle: one target, every constituency drawn toward it. Andhra Pradesh's 38 and Telangana's 25 land at 1.31:1 and 1.40:1 — close to one-person-one-vote, and tightening further as constituencies are drawn within districts to the same quota.

The discipline of timing

The army separates a peace posting from a war posting — the most sensitive preparation is done in the calm, long before the fighting. Electoral work has lost that discipline. The Special Intensive Revision landed in the middle of an election, and when names fell off the rolls, former Election Commissioners made the point plainly: the gap was administrative, the exercise was begun by the ECI itself, and a roll that is not full and final by the date of nomination simply leaves people out. The burden cannot be shifted onto the voter for a process the State set in motion.

Delimitation demands that principle in its strictest form — because it is the work of an independent, quasi-judicial commission whose orders carry the force of law and cannot be questioned in any court: no appeal, no second pass, no election-eve repair. A body that final must finish earliest, not latest — boundaries drawn, published and locked a clear year before 2029, in the quiet of a peace posting rather than the noise of a war one. Fair math earns its legitimacy only when fair timing carries it.

Between states, balance the weight. Within a state, equalise the vote.

The settlement

Flat 50% in the Centre, proportional within the State. It gives the South precisely the outcome the expansion committed to — 129 → ~194 seats, share intact — and writes that assurance into the framework itself rather than leaving it to future negotiation. It allows women's reservation to begin now. And it is robust to the one variable no one controls: which census is used. For the 2027-census era, this is not a compromise of last resort — it is the most viable, broadly acceptable settlement on the table.

Why this resolves the deadlock

April's Bill asked the South to accept a share-guarantee on trust — expansion to 850 on a proportional mechanism, with the assurance made in debate but not written into the text. The flat-50% approach is that guarantee, built into the method. It requires no fresh census to be fair and no predictive model to defend — only a multiplier and a target, the two simplest honest numbers in this debate.

And the timeline matters too

Method is only half the fairness; timing is the other half. New boundaries should be finalised, published, and legally notified well ahead of the polls — ideally a full year out, by early 2028. Parties, local leaders, and voters all need time to absorb redrawn lines, and an early deadline leaves room to address administrative anomalies before 2029. Finalising too close to an election quietly tilts the playing field.