Retribution for the south, accolade for the north

Retribution for the south, accolade for the north

Why in the News?

The South Indian states face the risk of reduced political representation due to its lower population size compared to the northern states, amid the recent passing of Women Reservation bill, 2023 in the Parliament.

Delimitation and political representation:

1. Article 81 of the Constitution: The Lok Sabha constituencies in the country should be equal by the size of population.
   1. 42^nd Amendment Act 1976: The no. of Lok Sabha constituencies for States was determined based on 1971 census and frozen for the next 25 years.
   2. 84^th Amendment Act: the freeze on no. of constituencies for each State was further prolonged until the first Census after 2026.
2. The population growth rates difference between the northern and southern states:
   1. The proportion of the population of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh increased from 44% to 48.2%, between 1971 and 2011.
   2. During the same period, the proportion of population of the five southern States declined from 24.9% to 21.1%.
3. If the size of Lok Sabha constituencies be enforced based on population projections of 2023, the five southern States will lose 23 seats, while the northern States will gain 37.
4. The freeze on distribution of seats among States has to be continued.
   1. Southern states have achieved population control due to combined efforts of social changes brought in by the leaders along with implementation of family planning programmes.
   2. reducing the proportional representation of southern States shall be not only a disincentive for these States but also an incentive for others for inaction towards population control and social change as public policy.

Role of population in fiscal transfers:

1. The Finance Commission constituted to recommend horizontal distribution of the Union government’s tax revenue among the States, provides larger weightage for Population and per capita income of a State.
2. Population of a State is a measure of demand for public expenditure.
   1. The Eighth Finance Commission (1984-89), stipulated to use only the 1971 population in the distribution instead of the 1981 population, which continued till the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010-15).
   2. The Fourteenth Finance Commission considered 1971 population, along with demographic changes since 1971, which immensely rewarded the southern States for controlling the population.
   3. However, the use of 2011 population in the distribution formula of the Fifteenth Finance Commission led to loss of advantage of gaining financial rewards for population control by the southern States.
3. The per capita income of a State is as the ability to raise its own revenue. 
   1. A higher per capita income (PCI) of a State shall lead to lower share in the Union tax revenue.
   2. Lower PCI of a State may be due to higher population for a given Gross State Domestic Product, which suggests that higher the current population of a State, the higher its share in the Union tax revenue. 
   3. The combined share of the 5 southern States in the Union government’s tax revenue declined from 21.1% to 15.8%. while the combined share of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh increased from 51.5% to 53.2% from 2000-05 to 2021-26.