New Delhi: The Union government has on Tuesday (April 14) circulated three Bills to MPs – less than 48 hours before they are to be presented in the special session of parliament on Thursday – that seek to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha.While the government’s stated objective for bringing the three Bills is to “operationalise” women’s reservation, a reading of the proposed legislations show that they are in effect being used to bring in large-scale changes that go beyond political representation for women.If passed, this will significantly alter parliamentary arithmetics, representation based on population and Union-state relations.The net beneficiary, of political power passing asymmetrically to the north, by this hurried exercise, minus any consultation, are political parties that have consistently won the north and west – in short, the BJP and its allies.The 2023 Women’s Reservation Act provided for 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislatures, but it was tied to delimitation and census. Read together, the three Bills provide for removing the freeze on the 1971 delimitation and make way for a fresh delimitation exercise, based on the “latest published census”, in effect implying the 2011 census.This is bound to disadvantage southern states that have since then instated more effective population control measures in comparison to those in the north. As a state’s population significantly influences the allocation of Union government funds, this will also directly impact its financial health – a concern that has already been a point of contention between southern states and the Union government.The proposed Bills raise fundamental questions flowing from how they are structured and their timing.What the Bills proposeThe Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 seeks to increase seats in the Lok Sabha from 543 to 850 by amending Article 81. It also seeks to amend Article 82 by omitting its proviso 3, which mandates the first readjustment of Lok Sabha seats and territorial constituencies after the year 2026 shall be based on the first census conducted after that year.The Bill further amends the marginal heading of Article 82 from “Readjustment after each Census” to “Readjustment of constituencies”, and removes the requirement of readjusting the number of Lok Sabha seats in states after every census.It also amends Article 170 on state assemblies and those laws providing reservation for SCs and STs, to change their basis from the 2001 census to “such Census” that parliament decides by law to use.In effect, this would put the authority with parliament to decide which census to use, without specifying it in the proposed legislation itself.The accompanying Delimitation Bill, 2026, provides for a Delimitation Commission headed by a Supreme Court judge, with the chief election commissioner and state election commissioners as members.The commission will readjust, on the basis of the “latest census figures”, the allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha, state legislatures and Union territory legislatures and draw constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of the People and to the legislative assemblies.What happens to the census 2027 now underway?A crucial question that comes out of a reading of the Bills, is why they refer to the latest census figures. With the 2021 census delayed by five years, census 2027 is now underway, having begun just this month.The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 seeks to amend Article 82 by omitting its clause 3, which provided that the next delimitation would follow census 2027.It also removes proviso 3 from Article 170 that provided that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust seats in state legislatures or constituencies that have been frozen on the basis of census 2001.It does not mention what happens to the current census that is underway.Congress MP and the party’s general secretary K.C. Venugopal has also questioned why the government is keen to use the 15-year-old census when the current exercise is underway.Removes freeze on 1971 delimitation, ties fresh exercise to ‘latest published census’In 2009, the delimitation changed boundaries within states, but pursued the objective of keeping the balance within states the same as before.In its statements of objects and reasons, the fresh Bill provides that while a freeze on the total number of seats on the basis of population figures from 1971 was imposed, the country’s“demographic profile has since undergone substantial changes, as reflected in the population figures of the latest published census, including significant inter-State and intra-State population shifts, rapid urbanisation and migration, and disproportionate growth in certain regions, resulting in wide disparities in the population and the constituencies.”It then provides that since “the objective of the proposed Bill is to operationalise one-third reservation for women, including women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”, the delimitation exercise is to be undertaken on the basis of the “population figures of the latest published census”.This opens the door to the redistribution of seats on the basis of the population since 1971.At present the five southern states have a total of 129 seats in the Lok Sabha: including Tamil Nadu (39), Karnataka (28), Andhra Pradesh (25), Kerala (20) and Telangana (17). The Union territories of Puducherry and Lakshadweep have one seat each.The three largest north Indian states – Uttar Pradesh (80), Bihar (40) and Rajasthan (25) – alone account for 125 seats.The Wire has reported that population census data reveals that north Indian states have experienced a much higher growth rate compared to their southern counterparts, which have undertaken family planning measures and controlled population growth.Data shows that between the 1971 and 2011 censuses, the combined population of Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat in the North grew by over 150%. In contrast, the southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka saw growth well below 100% during the same period.Overall fertility rates in south India have consistently dropped below the replacement level of 2.1, while north Indian states have significantly higher total fertility rates than their southern counterparts, though fertility rates are declining over time.This implies that northern states will have an increased number of seats, if the 2011 census is taken as the standard, in comparison to the southern states.This proposed delimitation will have financial implicationsAs Union tax allocations are heavily influenced by population size, this demographic shift might lead to a redistribution of resources.Opposition-ruled southern states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala are already locked in an ongoing confrontation with the Union government over the devolution of funds.Economically advanced states like those in the south, while being net contributors to the Union pool, receive disproportionately low returns.Data shows that the five southern states as well as Maharashtra receive significantly less than they contribute. Their returns range from a mere Rs 0.08 (Maharashtra) to Rs 0.62 (Kerala) for every Re 1 contributed.“If delimitation is carried out based on the 2011 census instead of the 1971 census, seats in the northern states will surge dramatically, while the representation of southern states will shrink or stagnate. In short, these Bills reflect a cunning strategy to reduce southern India to a political colony of the north,” said Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP for Kerala in the Rajya Sabha John Brittas.Ahead of the Tamil Nadu elections on April 23, chief minister M.K. Stalin has called delimitation the Union government’s “conspiracy” in parliament.Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy has written to other chief ministers of southern states and Prime Minister Narendra Modi proposing a hybrid model in which half of the increase in seats would be carried out on a pro-rata basis and the remaining on the basis of priority to states performing the best economically for national growth.