Speaking to CNBC-TV18, Bhardwaj said the draft proposals indicate that delimitation will be driven by population figures, potentially benefiting states with higher growth rates. “Southern states could effectively be penalised for controlling population growth,” she said, adding that “women’s reservation is being used as a smokescreen to push through delimitation”.
The Centre has convened the session ostensibly to implement the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, passed in 2023, which provides 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, the law links implementation to a delimitation exercise based on a future census, bringing the focus squarely on how and when delimitation will be conducted.
Arghya Sengupta of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy said the current debate is fundamentally about delimitation rather than women’s reservation. “This is not a women’s reservation Constitution amendment… this is actually an amendment on delimitation,” he said, calling it a “once-in-a-generation reform” that should not be rushed and must be examined in detail, ideally by a joint parliamentary committee.
The proposed changes include raising the Lok Sabha’s maximum strength from 550 to 850, removing the constitutional requirement to wait for the post-2026 census, and allowing Parliament to decide whether to use the 2011 or a future census for seat allocation. Critics argue that relying on the 2011 census could increase representation for northern states relative to southern states, altering the federal balance.
Major General Anil Verma (Retd) of the Association for Democratic Reforms also questioned the timing and process, saying the ongoing census should be used instead. “I fully agree that the 2026 census should be used… why not wait?” he said, adding that the manner in which the bills have been introduced raises concerns about transparency and consultation.
Also Read | Sonia Gandhi to Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav, who said what on Women’s Reservation Bill
The Delimitation Bill, 2026 proposes a commission led by a retired Supreme Court judge, along with the Chief Election Commissioner and State Election Commissioners, to redraw constituency boundaries. It would also have powers akin to a civil court, with limited scope for judicial challenge, prompting further scrutiny from critics.
While government sources have indicated that southern states will not be disadvantaged and that their proportion of seats will be maintained, experts and activists argue that the language of the proposed amendments does not guarantee that outcome, fuelling fears of a potential north-south divide in political representation.
