Tharoor Compares Delimitation To Salary Hike Lokesh Retorts

Senior Congress MP Shashi Tharoor and Telugu Desam Party working president and Andhra Pradesh minister Nara Lokesh have indulged in an interesting battle of words over the issue of parliamentary constituency delimitation, bringing to light the growing divide between concerns over regional political influence and arguments for equal voter representation.

Tharoor took to X to question TDP chief and chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s support for the Centre’s delimitation formula, and wondered whether such an approach of proportional increase in the number of MP seats adequately addresses the concerns of southern states, which fear losing political clout in national decision-making.

Using a salary analogy to explain his argument, Tharoor wrote: “Naidu ji, let’s try a thought experiment. Say your salary is 2 lakhs and your driver’s is 20,000. You announce a 50% increase for everybody. Your salary is now 3 lakhs and your driver’s is 30,000. The percentage or proportional increase is the same — but aren’t you much better off than your driver, than you used to be?”

Drawing a parallel to parliamentary representation, Tharoor argued that a proportional increase in seats could still widen the gap between large and small states.

Referring specifically to Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, he asked whether it would make no difference if Uttar Pradesh’s representation increased from 80 MPs to 120 while Kerala’s rose from 20 to 30.

“You don’t think there’s any difference between UP’s 80 MPs today versus Kerala’s 20 MPs, if it tomorrow becomes 120 vs 30? Some proportionate difference, huge difference in political weight — with 90 more UP MPs against 10 more Kerala MPs. Is that of no concern to you at all?” Tharoor asked.

The Congress leader’s remarks echoed concerns repeatedly raised by southern states that have successfully controlled population growth over the past five decades.

Responding point-by-point, Lokesh mounted a constitutional and demographic defence of the NDA’s position.

“Dear Dr. Tharoor, a few points here,” Lokesh began, before arguing that Article 81 of the Constitution envisages allocation of Lok Sabha seats on the basis of population.

He noted that the constitutional freeze on seat redistribution, linked to the 1971 Census, was always intended to be temporary and was scheduled to expire in 2026.

“In the absence of any intervention, a fresh delimitation based on the 2026 Census will see several southern states facing a sizable reduction in their share. Due to your opposition to the bill, the Congress party is squarely responsible for this,” Lokesh said.

The Andhra Pradesh minister further argued that India’s demographic realities have changed dramatically since the freeze was imposed nearly five decades ago.

“India in 2026 is not India in 1971. Our population has grown from about 55 crores to nearly 146 crores. While Lok Sabha membership has remained virtually unchanged, the average MP today represents nearly 2.5 times as many citizens as an MP did when the freeze was imposed. Expanding the House is therefore a democratic necessity, not a political choice,” he wrote.

Lokesh contended that increasing the number of seats while preserving each state’s existing share would strike a balance between improving representation and protecting states that successfully implemented population-control measures.

“If seats are increased to better reflect today’s population realities, retaining each state’s proportional share is a reasonable and balanced approach. It protects states that successfully implemented population stabilisation while simultaneously improving representation for all Indians,” he argued.

Rejecting the notion that any state is entitled to greater representation per voter, Lokesh said the Constitution seeks to ensure that every citizen’s vote carries approximately equal weight.

“More fundamentally, it is worth remembering that no state has a constitutional right to greater representation per voter than another. The Constitution’s objective is precisely the opposite: that every citizen’s vote should carry, as nearly as practicable, equal weight,” he said.

Addressing Tharoor’s analogy directly, Lokesh argued that parliamentary influence is determined by voting strength rather than absolute numbers.

“As for your thought experiment, parliamentary influence ultimately flows from votes on the floor of the House. Whether a simple majority or a two-thirds majority is required, a proportionate increase for all states leaves those equations unchanged. If everyone receives the same proportional increase, nobody gains an advantage over anyone else,” he wrote.