The authors, Princy Kapur and Arjun Kapur, are an educationist and a fourth-year student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, respectively.
Featured Artwork: ‘Gerrymandering Puzzle’ by Daniel Oberhaus
In democracies worldwide, Gerrymandering—redrawing electoral boundaries to benefit a specific political party or group—has long been a divisive topic. Frequently used as a political tool, it significantly affects representative government and democratic justice. In India, discussions about political manipulation and electoral fairness have been rekindled by the recent delimitation efforts in Assam and Jammu & Kashmir (“J&K”). Allegations of political vote engineering have been made in response to the redrawing of constituencies, allegedly done to provide fair representation.
There have been significant border redrawing efforts of constituencies in politically sensitive areas, which many contend serve special interests rather than the ideals of fair representation. By artificially altering election results and frequently boosting strong political groups while undermining the influence of minorities or opposing parties, Gerrymandering distorts democratic representation. Partisan favoritism was alleged after the 2022 Delimitation Commission report gave Hindu-majority Jammu more seats than Muslim-majority Kashmir.
This blog examines India’s delimitation framework, the Delimitation Commission’s role in drawing the boundaries, and corresponding constitutional provisions while analyzing the Gerrymandering in Assam and J&K.
A Brief Background of Delimitation in Assam and J&K
The Delimitation Commission of India’s 2023 report on the delimitation process has been among the most contentious in Assam’s history. Although 126 Assembly and 14 Parliamentary constituencies were kept in the exercise, borders were drastically changed to change the political landscape. While Upper Assam and regions with a tribal majority gained political clout, important Muslim-majority districts like ‘Barpeta,’ ‘Karimganj,’ and ‘Hailakandi’ lost seats. Similar to “racial gerrymandering” in the US, this has been denounced as a type of “religious gerrymandering” since it increases representation for Assamese-speaking and tribal communities while concentrating Muslim voters into fewer constituencies.
Similarly, the latest delimitation exercise in J&K faced Gerrymandering allegations. Opposition parties contend that the delimitation was set up to favor the center-right ruling party. With six more seats going to Jammu and just one to Kashmir, the Delimitation Commission report, 2022, raised the number of Assembly seats from 83 to 90. This action strengthened charges of political engineering by favoring Hindu-majority Jammu at the expense of Muslim-majority Kashmir.
Who Draws the Lines?
The Delimitation Act, of 2002, which gives the Delimitation Commission the authority to redraw electoral boundaries using the most recent Census data, is India’s primary law governing the delimitation process. By modifying constituency boundaries in response to population changes, this Commission—an independent statutory body—is tasked with guaranteeing proportional representation. Its proposals cannot be contested in court, which limits judicial control over possibly biased redistricting, raising questions about its autonomy as per Article 329 of the Constitution.
The Election Commission of India (“ECI”) cannot contest or change delimitation decisions made by the Delimitation Commission. While the ECI operates as an autonomous constitutional body with a strong record of conducting free and fair elections, it has faced persistent criticism for allegedly yielding to government influence, raising concerns about its independence. Despite being an independent statutory body, the Delimitation Commission lacks public accountability and transparency, making its functioning even more opaque. The Commission’s decisions are final and beyond judicial review, raising concerns that, without sufficient oversight, electoral boundaries could be manipulated for political advantage.
Constitutional Analysis of Gerrymandering
Petitions against Gerrymandering frequently reference Article 14, which protects the right to equality. A fundamental tenet of democracy is equal representation. However, the delimitation processes in Assam and J&K violate the fundamental principle of equality before the law by unfairly favoring particular political or ethnic groups. Assam’s constituency redrawing, for example, has come under fire for using tactics like “packing” and “cracking,” which are comparable to “racial Gerrymandering” in the United States, to lessen the Muslim community’s electoral influence. The recent delimitation in J&K, which gave more seats to Jammu, which has a Hindu majority, raises concerns about whether representation is designed to ensure equal political participation or weaken a specific group’s voting power.
An emerging legal argument against gerrymandering is the Right to Fair Representation under Article 21, which frames voting rights as a component of the fundamental right to life and liberty. It can be argued that modified constituency borders violate the right to free and fair elections, which are essential to democratic administration, even though the Indian judiciary has historically hesitated to include voting rights in Article 21’s purview explicitly.
International jurisprudence, especially in the United States (“US”), has supported a similar reasoning, with judges ruling that excessive Gerrymandering violates substantive due process. The authority of the Parliament to reorganize constituencies by delimitation is not unrestricted and must be used by the Constitution’s guarantees of free and fair elections. In Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, the SC maintained the limitation under Article 329, reaffirming that the judiciary cannot change or examine delimitation results, even if they seem to have political motivations.
Furthermore, In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Delimitation Commission, the Supreme Court (“SC”) reaffirmed its power to review the decisions of the Delimitation Commission if such decisions are manifestly arbitrary or irreconcilable with constitutional principles. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that the delimitation process remains fair, transparent, and in line with democratic ideals. In DMK v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court rejected the notion of a complete bar on judicial intervention in delimitation matters. It asserted that judicial intervention is permissible to facilitate free and fair elections, ensuring that the process adheres to constitutional mandates. This total deference requires reconsideration in light of the global best practices and the rising allegations of gerrymandering to reduce the value of the votes of a particular community in a systematic manner.
India’s anti-gerrymandering measures are not as strong as those in the US and the United Kingdom (“UK”). In R v Boundary Commission for England, the Court of Appeal emphasized that if institutions involved in the delimitation process exercise arbitrary power, then “the courts can and will intervene in defense of the ordinary citizen.” In the US, extreme political gerrymandering has been acknowledged as a constitutional violation, particularly when it undermines the principles of equal representation and fair elections. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the U.S. SC recognized that partisan gerrymandering can lead to “entrenchment” of political power by one party, making elections non-competitive and distorting democratic accountability. On a similar tangent in Shaw v. Reno, the Court struck down racial gerrymandering, holding that redistricting based predominantly on race, without a compelling justification, violates the Equal Protection Clause as it segregates voters and weakens minority representation.
These rulings emphasized that electoral boundaries could not be drawn in a way that systematically dilutes the voting power of particular groups. Applying the same reasoning in India, Gerrymandering could be challenged on the grounds that it violates Article 14’s guarantee of equality and undermines the right to free and fair elections, which is intrinsic to the democratic framework.
Fixing India’s Broken Delimitation Process
An open, impartial, and responsible delimitation procedure is essential to the future of electoral redistricting in India. A critical reform under discussion is creating an Independent Redistricting Commission, akin to models in Canada and the UK, where nonpartisan commissions manage constituency borders. These commissions rely on demographic data, public consultations, and mathematical fairness standards to ensure impartiality. However, India’s Delimitation Commission lacks several key safeguards, making the process susceptible to political influence.
Unlike independence in Boundary Commissions in the UK, which operate with minimal political interference due to their well-defined statutory independence, India’s delimitation process lacks similar safeguards, making it vulnerable to political influence. While the President formally constitutes the Delimitation Commission in India and operates under the Delimitation Act, its structural design does not ensure true independence. Unlike the UK, where commissions function autonomously and are composed of non-partisan experts, India’s Commission is chaired by a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge and includes Election Commission officials and government-appointed members, allowing potential executive influence. The absence of a fixed periodic review—delimitation in India is conducted irregularly, often driven by political considerations—further weakens its credibility.
This structural deficiency was evident via their actions in the recent delimitation exercises. While the appointment process may appear neutral, the Commission’s functioning and discretionary powers lack sufficient checks and balances to prevent bias. Several key reforms should be implemented to ensure true independence in the delimitation process. Firstly, establishing a fixed schedule for delimitation would prevent arbitrary delays or advancements driven by political considerations, ensuring a predictable and fair process. Secondly, the composition of the Delimitation Commission should be fully autonomous, consisting of retired judicial officers and independent experts rather than government-affiliated members, thereby minimizing undue influence and enhancing credibility. Thirdly, incorporating judicial oversight or a transparent appeals mechanism would allow stakeholders to challenge delimitation decisions effectively, ensuring accountability and fairness. The courts in the US have invalidated politically and racially biased maps; India could follow suit.
A fundamental issue is the lack of transparency and public participation. The current process does not mandate open hearings or detailed explanations for boundary changes, limiting public scrutiny and making it easier for ruling parties to manipulate constituencies for electoral gains.
A more effective system would involve an Independent Redistricting Commission, free from political appointees, through a collegiate system similar to one that the judiciary follows since the independence of the Commission is as important as the independence of the SC, except the members of the judiciary can be replaced by the EC members accordingly. with clear criteria for constituency design based on population equity, geographic contiguity, and demographic balance. This commission should be mandated to conduct public hearings and justify its decisions transparently before the electorate and other stakeholders, also allowing judicial oversight to challenge biased maps.
However, the key question is whether the judiciary is competent to oversee delimitation disputes or whether this function should remain within the legislative or the executive domain. Given the political biases often evident in legislative and executive decisions, judicial oversight is crucial to prevent Gerrymandering. To prevent excessive litigation, judicial review should be limited to extreme cases where delimitation clearly undermines constitutional rights. A structured approach would require petitioners to present concrete prima facie evidence of political manipulation, restrict challenges in a pre-election timeframe, and mandate transparency by compelling the Delimitation Commission to justify constituency changes with clear demographic data for an objective and unbiased assessment. However, substantial institutional and political obstacles exist to independent redistricting reform implementation. The dominant parties in India’s federal structure are incentivized to oppose any changes limiting their power to tamper with electoral maps. As delimitation is set to begin after 2026, the amendment must be pushed for immediately to ensure that the right to fair representation of the constituents is protected.
Leave a Reply