Our worst fears have been confirmed. Far from empowering women, the NDA government’s real aim appears to be disrupting India’s carefully maintained federal equilibrium. The new delimitation will use the 2011 census — not 1971 — to allocate shares in the proposed 850-seat Lok Sabha. Despite private assurances of a pro-rata increase, the bill contains no such guarantee.Women’s reservation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies is non-negotiable. After decades of agitation and debate, the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam finally enshrined one-third reservation for women. This was a historic step, though it came with several encumbrances. The 2023 Act inserted new provisions into the Constitution, mandating that “as nearly as may be, one-third” of seats be reserved for women, with rotation after each delimitation. The reservation was to be activated only after delimitation based on the first Census conducted after 2023.AdvertisementThe principal reform revolves around accommodating the women’s quota without displacing the male incumbents, by increasing the total number of seats by 50 per cent. Though the bills are silent, the government gave assurances privately that seat shares between states would remain proportionate. Even if relative ratios are preserved, the shift in absolute numbers fundamentally alters the power matrix. In politics, it is raw numbers that decide a party’s influence, coalition leverage and legislative outcomes.Herein lies the core problem with the government’s proposal. The accompanying delimitation exercise would raise the Lok Sabha strength from 543 to 850 seats.Article 81 of the Constitution capped the House at “not more than five hundred and thirty members” from the states, plus up to 20 from Union Territories — a total upper limit of 550. This cap reflected the framers’ intent to maintain a functional and manageable assembly. The proposed expansion shatters that limit.AdvertisementAssuming that ratios between states remain unchanged on paper, the absolute gains heavily favour northern states with larger populations. Estimates suggest that northern states could gain around 200 additional seats collectively, while southern and eastern states might gain roughly 66-90. As a result, the majority threshold would rise from 272 to approximately 408. This amplifies the clout of larger northern blocs, while diminishing the relative leverage of southern states and regional parties.Also Read | Bills on delimitation, expanded Lok Sabha, women’s quota rollout revealed: What they sayConsider the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a key BJP ally. Andhra Pradesh’s seats would increase proportionately, preserving the TDP’s share within the state. However, the BJP’s northern base would expand dramatically: Uttar Pradesh alone could potentially jump from 80 to 120 seats. In a 543-member House, a party with 15-20 seats carries significant bargaining power in coalition arithmetic. In an 850-member House, the same bloc becomes marginal unless it scales substantially. If the Delimitation Bill is implemented literally, bypassing the government’s assurances, the southern states would suffer massive losses. They would be reduced to virtual political colonies of the North.The proposal also raises concerns about the quality of parliamentary discourse. India’s legislatures already struggle with declining effectiveness. The Lok Sabha’s annual sittings have fallen from an average of 121 days (1952–1970) to around 55-68 days in recent decades. The committee system, Parliament’s deliberative backbone, has weakened sharply — only about 18 per cent of bills now go to committees, compared to 70 per cent in earlier Lok Sabhas. State assemblies fare even worse, most of them with just 20-28 sitting days a year. Adding hundreds of members will only exacerbate these problems.If the goal is simply to accommodate one-third women’s reservation while maintaining ratios, a more modest 25 per cent increase in seats would suffice. This would provide enough room for rotation and reservation without swelling the House to unmanageable proportions, better preserve functionality, limit North-South imbalances in absolute terms, and protect political diversity.The Modi government came to power promising “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance”. However, the proposed increase in the strength of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies contradicts this vision in multiple ways.First, a larger number of MPs and MLAs will substantially raise parliamentary and legislative expenditure, including salaries, allowances, and other costs.Second, since the size of the Council of Ministers is capped at 15 per cent of the House strength under the 91st Constitutional Amendment, an expanded Lok Sabha and Assemblies will automatically allow for bigger ministries, potentially increasing political patronage and reducing efficiency.you may likeThird, a significantly larger Lok Sabha will further diminish the role of the Rajya Sabha. In cases of deadlock, Article 108 provides for a joint sitting where the Lok Sabha’s numerical superiority already prevails. A still stronger Lower House risks turning the Rajya Sabha into a largely ineffective check against hasty legislation, weakening the bicameral balance of Parliament.Women’s reservation is a constitutional triumph and a moral imperative. However, embedding it in a 50 per cent expansion of seats risks transforming Parliament into a larger, more dysfunctional echo chamber rather than a sharper instrument of accountability.The writer is a CPI(M) Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)