Delimitation of Electoral Constituencies in India: Constitutional Framework, Historical Evolution, Comparative Practice and Contemporary Judicial Review

Abstract

Delimitation is the process of fixing or redrawing the boundaries of territorial constituencies for elections to representative legislative bodies. In a federal and highly populous democracy such as India, delimitation has profound consequences for political representation, electoral equality, federal balance, social justice and democratic legitimacy. India, however, has adopted a distinctive approach to delimitation. Although the Constitution originally contemplated periodic readjustment, the allocation of seats among States was frozen on the basis of the 1971 Census in order to encourage population stabilisation. The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 extended this freeze until the first census after 2026, while the 87th Amendment Act, 2003 permitted readjustment of constituency boundaries using 2001 Census figures without altering the overall allocation of seats among States. The Delimitation Commission constituted under the Delimitation Act, 2002 subsequently carried out the principal nationwide delimitation exercise, culminating in the 2008 orders. In India, this exercise is constitutionally mandated under Articles 81 and 82, yet it has been frozen since 1976 through constitutional amendments that postponed readjustment of seat allocation until after the first census taken after 2026. The 2026 Delimitation Bill, introduced alongside the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, sought to operationalise this deferred exercise by expanding the Lok Sabha from 543 to 850 seats and redrawing constituencies on the basis of the 2011 Census. Both Bills were defeated in Parliament, with the constitutional amendment falling short of the required two-thirds majority. This paper examines India's constitutional and legal framework for delimitation, analyses the 2026 legislative proposals and their failure, and undertakes a comparative analysis of delimitation regimes in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. It further examines contemporary Indian case law on judicial review of delimitation, including the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India and the 2025 ruling in K. Purushottam Reddy. The paper argues that while Article 329(a) imposes a near-absolute bar on judicial scrutiny of delimitation orders, recent jurisprudence has cautiously reopened avenues for review in cases of manifest arbitrariness or constitutional incompatibility. Comparative practice demonstrates that independent boundary commissions, transparent criteria, and limited judicial oversight are essential safeguards against gerrymandering and electoral manipulation. The paper concludes that India's failure to enact the 2026 Delimitation Bill represents both a constitutional crisis and an opportunity for principled reform.

Authors & Affiliations

* Corresponding Author. Author contact details are available in the published PDF article as per journal policy.

Keywords & Indexing Terms

Download Center

Indexing & Verification

G Google Scholar Check indexing visibility by DOI Crossref / DOI Verify permanent DOI record ORCID Author identifier support Open Access Free reader access Indexing Ready Scholar metadata compatible OAI-PMH Metadata harvesting ready Article Metrics Views & download analytics

Article Metrics

Metrics are indicative and may update periodically after indexing, downloads and citation tracking are enabled.

Article Integrity & Transparency

License & Copyright

© 2026 The Author(s). The author(s) retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

How to Cite

PDF Preview

If the PDF preview does not load on your device, open the PDF directly or use the Download PDF button. Open PDF in new tab

Declarations

Publisher's Note

References

Showing first 3 references. Click “Show All References” to view complete list.

1. 1. Constitution of India, Articles 81, 82, 170, 330, 332, 329.
2. 2. Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.
3. 3. Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001.
4. 4. Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2003.
5. 5. Delimitation Act, 2002.
6. 6. Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026 (defeated).
7. 7. Delimitation Bill, 2026 (withdrawn).
8. 8. Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (United Kingdom).
9. 9. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Australia).
10. 10. Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Canada).
11. 11. Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act 27 of 1998 (South Africa).
12. 12. Voting Rights Act of 1965 (United States).
13. 13. Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, (1967) 1 SCR 400.
14. 14. Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India, (2024) 13 SCC 237.
15. 15. K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India, (2025).
16. 16. Hirendranath Gohain v. Union of India, (2023).
17. 17. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).
18. 18. Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas v. Union of India, (2025).
19. 19. Mukherjee, R, 'The Delimitation Bill, 2026: A Federal Stress-Test for India's Electoral Cartography' (2026) 9(3) International Journal of Law Management & Humanities.
20. 20. Francis, PL and others, 'Necessity of Judicial Review in Delimitation and the Shifting Regime of Restrictions: To Review or Not to Review' (2025) Lex Localis.
21. 21. Law and Other Things, 'Delimitation and the 1976 Settlement: The Cat Is Out of the Bag – Part I' (5 May 2026).
22. 22. The Hindu, 'Constitution Amendment Bill, Part of Delimitation Package, Defeated' (18 April 2026).
23. 23. The Hindu, 'In 2025 Verdict, Supreme Court Had Warned of Delimitation "Destabilising Uniform Electoral Framework"' (16 April 2026).
24. 24. Bar and Bench, 'Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Delimitation in Assam but Agrees to Examine Validity of Section 8A of RP Act' (24 July 2023).

Related Articles