Delimitation

What is Delimitation?

Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing boundaries of electoral constituencies in a country to ensure fair
representation of its population. This process is carried out based on factors like population changes, administrative
convenience, and political considerations. It is especially important in democracies to maintain balance in electoral
representation.

Delimitation in India:

responsible for redrawing parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on

census data. The last delimitation exercise was based on the 2001 Census
(implemented in 2008).
new delimitation exercise is expected after the 2026 Census.
the delimitation process has been frozen until 2026 to maintain the balance of representation among
states

Constitutional Basis of Delimitation in India:

The process of delimitation in India is governed by the Constitution of India and various
legislative acts.

Article 82 – Readjustment of Constituencies

After every Census, Parliament is required to enact a Delimitation Act to redraw the boundaries
of Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituencies

Article 170 – Composition of State Legislative Assemblies

Specifies the allocation of seats in State Assemblies based on [Link] number of
constituencies is readjusted after each Census-based delimitation exercise.

Article 330 & Article 332 – Reservation of Seats for SCs and STs
Ensures proportionate representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in
Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.

Article 327 & Article 328 – Power to Make Laws on Delimitation

Article 327: Grants Parliament the authority to enact laws.

Article 328: Allows State Legislatures to make laws related to delimitation for State Assembly
elections

Article 243D & 243T: Mandates 1/3rd reservation for women in Panchayats and Municipalities.
128th Constitutional Amendment Act (2023) 33% reservation for women in Lok Sabha and
State Assemblies.
 42nd Amendment Act (1976) – Freezing of Delimitation
The delimitation process was suspended until 2001 based on the 1971 Census to control
political imbalance caused by population growth variations.

84th Amendment Act (2001) – Further Freezing of Delimitation Until 2026

Extended the freeze on delimitation until after the 2026 Census, meaning constituency
boundaries and seat allocations remain based on the 1971 Census [Link] minor
readjustments for SC/ST seat reservations based on the 2001 Census.

Countries Adopting the Delimitation System:

INDIA United States United Kingdom Canada (Electoral Australia

(Reapportionment (Boundary Redistribution) (Redistribution of
& Redistricting Reviews) Electoral Divisions)

South Africa Malaysia (Electoral Pakistan Bangladesh Nigeria

Boundary Review)
Delimitation Projection Table:

📌 Summary & Insights:

Major Increases: Heavily populated northern states (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan etc..,) will see
the biggest seat gains.
Southern States: Minimal gains or even losses (e.g., Kerala -1), reflecting lower population growth and
better demographic control.
Smaller States & UTs: Most retain status quo (no change in Lok Sabha seats).
Overall Lok Sabha Size Increase: From 543 to ~750+ seats expected.
📚 How Literacy Rate Impacts Delimitation (Indirectly):

🏛 Demand for Administrative Reforms

Literate populations often demand better governance, transparency, and accountability.
These areas may push for more manageable constituencies, especially in densely populated states,
which can be considered during delimitation.

🏙 Urbanization & Education Clusters

States with high literacy rates tend to have dense urban and semi-urban education hubs (like Kerala,
Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra).
Urban constituencies might be redrawn more frequently due to faster population growth, better data, and
educated voter pressure.

📊 Data Availability & Planning

High-literacy states often have better records, census data, and administrative cooperation, making
delimitation smoother and more precise.
In contrast, low-literacy states may face data collection issues, leading to delimitation delays or errors.
State Litera Possible Delimitation Influence
cy
Rate
(%)

Keral 94%+ Demands equal representation, regular boundary reviews

a

Mizor 91%+ Push for fair tribal representation, smaller constituencies

am

Tamil 81%+ Urban growth might push rebalancing in Chennai and other metros
Nadu

Maha 82%+ Mumbai, Pune zones may demand subdivision due to high literacy & density
rashtr
a

Bihar ~63% Low literacy may affect political awareness; rural delimitation is complex

Uttar ~70% Varied literacy—urban/rural split affects how boundaries are drawn
Prade
sh

Rajas ~66% Underrepresentation in rural low-literacy areas may be addressed

than

North 75– High literacy in many areas → push for ethnic, language-based delimitations
east 90%
State
s

Jhark ~67% May need attention in tribal areas for fair representation
hand/
Chhat
tisgar
h
🔍 Key Takeaways
🟢 High literacy = More voter engagement, better data availability, and active demand for fair representation.

🔴 Low literacy = Risk of underrepresentation, poor data, and less public input into the delimitation process.

🗺 Delimitation in mixed-literacy states needs to ensure balanced urban-rural representation to prevent bias
toward more vocal literate populations.
State/UT Literacy Rate (%) Delimitation Sensitivity

Kerala 94 High - Urban demand, strong

participation

Mizoram 91.3 High - Tribal representation

Tamil Nadu 80.1 Medium - Urban reshaping

Maharashtra 82.3 High - Metro rebalancing

Karnataka 78 Medium - Tech growth zones

Gujarat 78 Medium - Balanced urban-rural

Punjab 76.7 Medium - Border influence

West Bengal 77.1 Medium - Dense population

zones

Himachal Pradesh 83.8 Medium - Mountainous spread

Odisha 73.5 Medium - Tribal areas

Uttarakhand 78.8 Medium - Mixed zones

Haryana 76.6 Medium - Industrial belt

Delhi 89.4 High - Dense urban core

Andhra Pradesh 67 Medium - Developing literacy

Telangana 72.8 Medium - Emerging metro

clusters

Rajasthan 66.1 Low - Low rural literacy

Assam 73.2 Medium - Ethnic balancing

Chhattisgarh 70.3 Low - Tribal and rural

Jharkhand 67.6 Low - Tribal focus

Madhya Pradesh 70.6 Medium - Regional gaps

Uttar Pradesh 69.7 Low - Complex rural structures

Bihar 63.8 Low - Very low rural literacy

Tripura 87.2 Medium - Tribal dense

Meghalaya 75.5 Medium - Low density

Manipur 79.8 Medium - Ethnic variety

Nagaland 79.6 Medium - Naga areas

Arunachal Pradesh 66.9 Medium - Sparse tribal

Sikkim 81.4 Medium - Mountainous

Goa 88.7 Low - Small size

Jammu & Kashmir 68.7 Medium - Conflict zone

✅ How SC/ST Population Affects Delimitation:
Article 330 & Article 332 – Reservation of Seats for SCs and STs
Ensures proportionate representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Lok Sabha and
State Assemblies.

Delimitation Commission: Ensures that the number of reserved constituencies for SCs/STs is aligned with their
population share as per the latest Census
State/UT Total SC ST Delimitation Sensitivity
Populati Populati Popul
on (in on (%) ation
Crores) (%)

Kerala 3.5 9.1 1.5 High - Urban demand, strong participation

Mizoram 0.12 0.04 94.4 High - Tribal representation

Tami 7.6 20 1.1 Medium - Urban reshaping

l
Nad
u

Mahara 12.4 11.8 9.4 High - Metro rebalancing

s htra

Karnata 6.7 17.1 7 Medium - Tech growth zones

ka

Gujarat 6.9 6.7 14.8 Medium - Balanced urban-rural

Punjab 3 31.9 0 Medium - Border influence

West 10.1 23.5 5.8 Medium - Dense population zones

Benga
l

Himach 0.8 25.2 5.7 Medium - Mountainous spread

al
Pradesh

Odisha 4.6 17.1 22.8 Medium - Tribal areas

Uttarak 1.2 18.8 2.9 Medium - Mixed zones

h and

Haryana 2.9 20.2 0 Medium - Industrial belt

Delhi 2 16.7 0 High - Dense urban core

Andhra 5.2 18.5 6.7 Medium - Developing literacy

Prades
h

Telanga 3.9 16.2 9 Medium - Emerging metro clusters

na
Rajasth 8.1 17.8 13.5 Low - Low rural literacy
an

Assam 3.5 7.2 12.4 Medium - Ethnic balancing

Chhattis 2.9 12.8 30.6 Low - Tribal and rural

g arh

Jharkha 3.5 12.1 26.3 Low - Tribal focus

nd

Madhy 8.2 15.6 21.1 Medium - Regional gaps

a
Prades
h

Uttar 24.1 21.1 0.6 Low - Complex rural structures

Prades
h

Bihar 12.8 15.9 1.3 Low - Very low rural literacy

Tripura 0.4 17.3 31.8 Medium - Tribal dense

Meghal 0.3 2.5 86.1 Medium - Low density

a ya

Manipur 0.3 3.6 35.2 Medium - Ethnic variety

Nagaland 0.2 2.2 86.5 Medium - Naga areas

Arunach 1.4 0.6 68.8 Medium - Sparse tribal

al
Pradesh

Sikkim 0.7 5 33.8 Medium - Mountainous

Goa 0.15 1.6 10.2 Low - Small size

Jammu 1.3 8.2 11.9 Medium - Conflict zone

&
Kashmir

📌 Summary
Higher SC/ST population = more reserved seats in that state.
Delimitation ensures equitable representation for marginalized groups, o1ten
restructuring constituencies to reflect their geographic distribution.
Political empowerment, access to policy, and development are key goals enabled
by SC/ST representation through delimitation.
 How Women Population Affects Delimitation:

Delimitation must account for equitable representation, and the proportion of women in the
population affects:

Number of reserved seats for women (33% in Lok Sabha & State Assemblies)
Allocation of political power in regions with high/low female demographics
Gender-sensitive governance in constituencies
Political empowerment of rural/urban women
State/UT Women Impact on Delimitation
Population
(%)

Kerala 52.1 High female literacy and population → stronger case for women-centric
constituencies and policy focus

Mizoram 50.7 Tribal women actively participate → requires inclusive representation in

hill/tribal seats

Tami 50.2 Urban-rural balance necessitates fair women's seat distribution in both
l areas
Nad
u

Maharash 48.3 Urban migration reduces women ratio in cities → urban seats need
t ra balancing

Karnataka 49.6 Growing female voter base → expected to influence future seat
reservations

Gujarat 48.2 Lower ratio in urban centers → delimitation must not ignore women's
political needs

Punjab 47.8 Skewed sex ratio → more seats needed in rural zones to empower
women politically

West 49.9 High rural women voter strength → rural women's issues must reflect in
Benga constituency redesign
l

Himach 49.5 Mountainous areas require localized women-focused representation

al
Pradesh

Odisha 49.6 Tribal and rural women representation critical → reservation in tribal belts

Uttarakha 49 Hill migration leaves behind women → reverse migration and women
nd empowerment need voice in delimitation

Haryana 47.1 Skewed sex ratio → more effort needed to ensure balanced female political
representation

Delhi 47.8 Dense population, urban issues → requires targeted urban women
constituencies

Andhra 49.2 Women empowerment schemes popular → must translate to seat share
Prades via delimitation
h

Telangana 49.5 Urban-rural mix → needs reservation distribution across varied districts
 Rajasthan 48.1 Rural women underrepresented → delimitation can bridge gender
participation gap

Assam 49.8 High female voter turnout → women-centric representation is essential

Chhattis 49.3 Strong tribal female population → Delimitation must secure their voice
g arh

Jharkhand 48.9 Marginalized communities need women's political inclusion via reserved
constituencies

Madhy 48.5 Women participation growing → upcoming delimitation must reflect that
a
Prades
h

Uttar 47.8 Large population, but fewer female MPs → Delimitation with women's
Prades quota will shift the political dynamics
h

Bihar 48.4 Political awareness among women rising → Reserved seats could
empower grassroots governance

Tripura 50.1 Tribal and rural women are politically active → need for dedicated
representation

Meghala 50.6 Matrilineal society → Delimitation must respect traditional women's

ya leadership

Manipur 50.4 Protesting, aware women electorate → reservation will enable political
participation

Nagaland 49.1 Women demand long overdue political rights → Delimitation offers legal
space for inclusion

Arunachal 49.7 Tribal women voice often unheard → Reserved seats can improve inclusion
Pradesh

Sikkim 49.8 Small population, high awareness → gender-balanced constituencies

easily achievable

Goa 50 Equal women ratio → reservation can enable gender-sensitive urban

policies

Jammu 48.3 Conflict affected zones → women’s participation post-delimitation crucial

& for rebuil
Kashmir

✅ Summary:
High women population = More influence in redrawing constituencies
Low women ratio = Need for corrective representation through reservation
Reservation will be constituency-specific, so accurate gender demographic data is essential during
delimitation.
✅ How Crime Rate Affects Delimitation:

Notes:

Crime Rate is defined as the number of cognizable crimes per 100,000 population.
Data is sourced from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports for the respective years.

🔍 Crime Rate and Administrative Efficiency

High-crime areas may require smaller, more manageable constituencies to ensure better law and order
management and easier access for elected representatives.
Law enforcement and governance become critical in such regions, which might prompt a reevaluation of
constituency boundaries for improved administration.

Delimitation is not directly driven by crime rates, but crime can shape electoral representation, governance
needs, and administrative efficiency, which are all considerations that can indirectly impact how
constituencies are drawn.

📊 Example Overview: Impact by State (Generalized)

State Crime Rate Impact Possible Delimitation Outcome

Uttar Pradesh High crime & large population Constituency boundaries may be redrawn for better
law enforcement representation

Bihar Crime-prone rural belts Redistribution to increase focus on governance

Delhi Urban crime spikes Tighter urban constituency divisions

Maharashtra Metro crime concentration Potential split in urban constituencies

Jharkhand Tribal and Naxal violence Special administrative handling via delimitation

Northeast Border crime, low policing May see reorganization for security efficiency
states access
🗳 How Voter Turnout Affects Delimitation:

Turnout Implication on Delimitation

Level
High Turnout - Signals political engagement → warrants fair and possibly increased
representation

Low Turnout - May indicate apathy, access issues, or disinterest → could lead to boundary
mergers

Urban-Rural Split - Urban apathy vs rural activity may shift delimitation focus towards rural
constituencies

Tribal - High tribal turnout promotes reserved and protected constituencies

Participation
🗳 State-wise Impact of Voter Turnout on Delimitation:
State/UT Recent Voter Impact on Delimitation
Turnout (%)

Kerala 74–78% High turnout → Signals active citizenry; requires fair constituency
distribution to avoid voter dilution

Tamil Nadu 72–74% Consistent turnout → Delimitation must maintain proportionality

between urban and rural voters

Maharashtra 55–61% Low in metros → May lead to reallocation of urban seats to areas with
higher participation

Uttar Pradesh 58–62% Large population + moderate turnout → Needs carefully sized
constituencies to maintain equal vote weight

West Bengal 75–80% High turnout → Indicates demand for localized representation and
dense constituency clusters

Bihar 56–58% Lower turnout in some regions → Might face boundary mergers if
consistent apathy is seen

Andhra 77–81% High turnout → Strong justification for increased seat count if
Prades population justifies
h

Telangana 70–72% Steady turnout → Needs urban-rural balance in constituency count

Karnataka 68–72% Moderate turnout, urban-rural difference → Must reflect this split in
boundary design

Madhy 74–77% High turnout → May justify more granular constituency divisions in
a active zones
Prades
h

Chhattisgarh 75–78% High tribal participation → Tribal zones may demand focused
representation

Jharkhand 66–69% Rural regions vote actively → Delimitation should account for active
rural blocks

Odisha 72–75% Strong tribal and rural turnout → Must be reflected in equitable
delimitation

Punjab 70–74% Slight dip in turnout in recent years → Delimitation must avoid
underrepresenting politically aware regions

Haryana 68–72% Male-heavy turnout → Delimitation can address gender imbalances in

participation through representation

Assam 78–82% One of the highest turnouts → Strong basis for better boundary
 alignment to

voter clusters

Kerala 74–78% Highly participative → Demands transparent delimitation for fairness

Delhi 58–62% Low turnout despite population → Urban apathy might lead to seat
consolidation if persistent

Uttarakhand 68–72% Hilly terrain + moderate turnout → Needs geographically sensitive

delimitation

Goa 78–80% High turnout, small area → Easy for delimitation to ensure equity

Tripura 81–84% Among highest turnouts → Tribal engagement means delimitation

must ensure tribal representation

Meghalaya 74–78% Good turnout in tribal belts → Reserved constituencies should remain
intact or increase

Manipur 75–79% High participation despite conflict → Delimitation must protect

marginal voices

Nagaland 83–85% Exceptional turnout → Demands high-quality delimitation reflecting

community participation

Mizoram 80–82% High tribal turnout → Must sustain and strengthen regional
representation

Sikkim 77–79% Stable turnout → Requires proportional representation based on size

and population

Arunachal 73–76% Good turnout in low-density areas → Needs broader territorial

Pradesh constituencies for accessibility

Jammu 49–52% Low due to conflict → Delimitation must carefully balance security,
& (varies) access, and fair representation
Kashmir
Top Tax-Contributing States:
As of April 2025, the central government of India does not publicly disclose detailed data on the exact tax
contributions made by each state. However, some insights can be drawn from available reports and
analyses:

State Tax Contribution (₹ Number of Taxpayers

Crore) (Lakhs)

Maharashtra
400,000 119.44

Delhi
91,247 33.00

Karnataka
70,000 49.22

Tamil Nadu
65,000 45.00

Gujarat
60,000 35.00

West Bengal
50,000 30.00

Uttar Pradesh
27,687.9 45.00

Haryana
29,881.2 20.00

Andhra
Pradesh 20,000 25.00

Note: The figures above are approximate and based on data available up to 2019. More recent and detailed state-wise tax
contribution data is not publicly disclosed by the central government.

Observations:

Maharashtra consistently emerges as the highest tax-contributing state, reflecting its robust industrial
and financial sectors.
Delhi and Karnataka also contribute significantly, indicative of their strong economic activities,
particularly in services and information technology.
Despite having a large population, Uttar Pradesh's tax contribution is comparatively lower, suggesting
disparities in per capita income and economic development.

Important Considerations:

The absence of publicly available, detailed, and recent data limits precise analysis of state-wise tax
contributions. Tax contributions are influenced by various factors, including the state's economic
structure, per capita income,
presence of industries, and the efficiency of tax collection mechanisms.
While the central government collects taxes, a portion is redistributed to states based on
recommendations from the Finance Commission, aiming to address fiscal imbalances and promote
equitable development.

According to data tabled in the Lok Sabha in March 2025, the following five states contributed significantly
to India's direct tax collections in the fiscal year 2023-24:
 1. Maharashtra
2. Karnataka
3. Delhi
4. Tamil Nadu
5. Gujarat

Collectively, these states accounted for approximately 72% of the total direct taxes collected by the central
government during that period.