Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Friday delivered a pointed critique of the Centre’s proposed delimitation exercise, warning that a hurried redrawing of constituencies could have far-reaching and destabilising consequences. Drawing a sharp parallel with the controversial demonetisation drive announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tharoor cautioned that the current approach risks becoming a case of “political demonetisation.”
“Unfortunately, we all know what damage that (demonetisation) did to the country. Delimitation will turn out to be political demonetisation,” Tharoor said during the Lok Sabha debate, urging the government in unequivocal terms: “Don’t do it.”
At the heart of his argument was the concern that the proposed changes—centred on reallocating parliamentary seats based on updated census data—could significantly alter India’s political balance. Tharoor pointed out that states such as Kerala, which have effectively controlled population growth, could stand to lose representation, while more populous states in the Hindi heartland, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, may gain additional seats. Such a shift, he argued, would disproportionately tilt political influence.
Responding to these apprehensions, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had earlier assured Parliament that there would be a uniform 50 per cent increase in Lok Sabha seats, ensuring that no state loses its existing share. However, Tharoor questioned the credibility and durability of this assurance.
“I want to say the 50% formula that suddenly the home minister came and presented to us yesterday… remains a precarious political assurance and not a legislative certainty,” he said. He further argued, “Because the pledge is fundamentally contradicted by the existing text of the legislation itself, which gives total freedom to the Delimitation Commission appointed by the government, whose decisions cannot be challenged in a court of law.”
Tharoor warned that without firm constitutional or statutory safeguards, such assurances could be easily altered. “Since this formula is not codified as an immutable constitutional or legislative safeguard, it could be easily discarded or altered by a simple parliamentary majority, offering no guarantee that it will survive beyond the very short term,” he added.
Beyond representation, Tharoor also raised concerns about the functional viability of a significantly expanded Parliament. He cautioned that increasing the Lok Sabha’s strength to around 800–850 members could render it “unwieldy and unworkable,” particularly at a time when parliamentary sittings have been steadily declining.
“Whereas the first and second Lok Sabhas met for an average of 125 days a year, the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas saw that figure plummet to just below 60 days,” he noted. Addressing Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, Tharoor asked, “In such a constrained schedule, what will your job be, sir?” He added that a chamber of such size would require “at least a doubling of the time currently allotted to Question Hour, Zero Hour, for a majority of MPs.”
Tharoor also reiterated his opposition to linking women’s reservation with delimitation, a move he has consistently criticised. Speaking to reporters outside Parliament earlier, he said the opposition fully supports women’s reservation but questions the necessity of tying it to a complex and contentious delimitation process.
“We don’t have any problem with women’s reservation… they can do it immediately, but why delimitation is being included, this is our question,” he said. Emphasising the need for broader consultation, he added, “There are many issues related to delimitation, a long discussion is required, but they want to wind up in 2-3 days; this is not possible.”
He also pointed out that the women’s reservation proposal had already received cross-party backing when it was introduced earlier. “If the government wants women’s reservation, they could have done it in 2023… They should do it now, we will support, no delimitation, just women’s reservation bill,” Tharoor asserted.
Reiterating his central warning, he said, “The manner in which you are doing delimitation, the way you did demonetisation without thinking. We don’t want this political demonetisation. There should be a big debate; what should be the formula, only population cannot be the basis. Speak with the south, northeast, small states.”
Meanwhile, the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill—intended to modify the framework for women’s reservation—was introduced in the Lok Sabha following a division of votes. Alongside it, the Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill were also tabled, seeking to extend the proposed changes to Union Territories such as Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu and Kashmir.
As the debate intensifies, Tharoor’s remarks underscore a growing demand within the opposition for a more consultative, transparent, and constitutionally grounded approach to what could be one of the most consequential electoral reforms in recent years.
