Content

1. Delimitation, Finance Commission & Southern States
2. Quad in 2025: A Year of Interregnum 

Delimitation, Finance Commission & Southern States

Why in News?

• Renewed debate on post-2026 delimitation of Lok Sabha seats ahead of the 2029 General Elections.
• Finance Commission allocations to southern States declining as population carries ~50% weight in tax devolution.
• Concern that States which successfully reduced fertility will face loss of political and fiscal power.
• Delimitation Commission (DC) likely to be constituted after Census 2026 (expected results by Oct 2028).

Relevance

GS II – Polity & Governance

• Delimitation Commission: constitutional mandate, democratic representation.
• Federalism: Centre–State balance, political equity.
• Constitutional amendments: 42nd, 84th, 87th CAA.
• Role of constitutional bodies: Finance Commission vs Delimitation Commission.

GS III – Economy

• Fiscal federalism and horizontal imbalances.
• Demographic transition and economic performance.
• Incentive structures in public policy.

Practice Question

• “Post-2026 delimitation risks undermining the principle of cooperative federalism.”
  Examine in the context of demographic transition across Indian States.(250 Words)

Core Issue

• Policy paradox: States investing in health, education, and family planning face:
  • Reduced Union tax share.
  • Potential relative loss of Lok Sabha seats.
• Population growth since 1991 concentrated in:
  • Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh.
• Southern States (TN, Kerala, Karnataka, AP, Telangana):
  • Near-replacement or below-replacement TFR.
  • Slower population growth → representation penalty.

Constitutional & Legal Background

• 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001:
  • Froze Lok Sabha seat allocation till Census after 2026.
  • Explicit intent: incentivise population stabilisation.
• Census delay:
  • 2021 Census postponed.
  • Results now expected 2028, enabling DC before 2029.
• Implication:
  • Seat proportions may change, widening absolute seat gap between North & South.

Fiscal Federalism Link

• Finance Commission criteria (15th FC indicative):
  • Income distance: ~50%.
  • Population (2011): significant weight.
  • Demographic performance.
  • Tax effort.
• Southern States’ grievance:
  • High contribution to GDP & taxes, declining relative transfers.
• Key contradiction:
  • FC rewards population control.
  • DC likely to penalise population control.

Political Impact of Delimitation

• Even if seat proportion freezes, absolute numbers matter:
  • Northern States gain more MPs.
  • Southern States’ agenda-setting power weakens.
• Risk of permanent political dominance by high-population States.

Proposed Solutions

Increase Lok Sabha Seats (Status Quo Ratios)

• Basis: 2011 Census.
• Lok Sabha size: ~866 seats.
• Pros:
  • No State loses seats.
  • Least disruptive.
• Cons:
  • Still rewards high population growth.

Equal Representation in Rajya Sabha

• Fixed seats per State (e.g., 10 each).
• RS strength: ~290.
• Federal logic (US Senate model).
• Politically unlikely due to Lok Sabha dominance focus.

Expand Vidhan Sabhas

• Equalise MLAs per 1,000 population.
• Improves State-level representation.
• Does not address Lok Sabha power imbalance.

Digressive Proportionality (Most Viable)

• Lok Sabha seats:
  • 60% population-based
  • 40% demographic performance-based
• Rewards States with:
  • Lower fertility.
  • Better human development.
• Mirrors:
  • EU Parliament’s digressive proportionality.
• Aligns with Finance Commission logic.

Comparative & Conceptual Anchor

• Digressive Proportionality:
  • Larger States: more seats, fewer per capita.
  • Smaller States: fewer seats, higher vote weight.
• Balances:
  • One person, one vote vs federal equality.

Strategic Imperative for Southern States

• Build early political consensus before DC constitution.
• Demand:
  • Explicit inclusion of demographic performance in delimitation.
• Frame issue as:
  • Rewarding responsible governance, not regional favouritism.

Takeaway

• Post-2026 delimitation risks penalising States that achieved demographic transition; adopting digressive proportionality offers a constitutionally consistent and federal solution to balance representation with responsibility.

Delimitation – Static Notes  

What is Delimitation?

• Delimitation: Redrawing boundaries of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly constituencies to reflect population changes.
• Objective:
  • Equal representation → “one person, one vote, one value”.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 82:
  • Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act after every Census.
• Article 170:
  • Delimitation of State Legislative Assembly constituencies.
• Article 327:
  • Parliament’s power over elections.
• Article 329:
  • Bars judicial interference in delimitation orders.

Delimitation Commission (DC)

• Nature: Independent, high-powered statutory body.
• Constitution:
  • Chairperson: Retired Supreme Court judge.
  • Members:
    • Chief Election Commissioner / Election Commissioner.
    • State Election Commissioners.
• Key Feature:
  • DC orders have the force of law.
  • Not challengeable in court.

Historical Timeline

• Delimitation Commissions constituted in:
  • 1952
  • 1963
  • 1973
  • 2002
• Last major delimitation:
  • Based on 2001 Census (implemented in 2008).

Freezing of Seats 

42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976

• Froze Lok Sabha and Assembly seats based on 1971 Census.
• Period: 1976–2000.
• Rationale:
  • Encourage population control.

84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001

• Extended freeze till Census after 2026.
• Allowed:
  • Readjustment of constituency boundaries, not seat numbers.
• Explicit intent:
  • Reward States with successful family planning.

87th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003

• Permitted delimitation using 2001 Census data.
• Did not alter total number of seats.

Quad in 2025: A Year of Interregnum 

Why in News?

• 2025 marked the first year since 2021 without a Quad leader-level summit, despite escalating Indo-Pacific tensions.
• Return of Donald Trump as U.S. President triggered uncertainty over U.S. multilateral commitments.
• India was scheduled to host the 2025 summit, but it did not materialise, raising questions about the Quad’s momentum.
• Despite this, Quad initiatives continued, signalling resilience rather than decline.

Relevance

GS II – International Relations

• Indo-Pacific strategy.
• Minilateralism vs multilateralism.
• India–US–Japan–Australia strategic convergence.
• Rules-based international order.

GS III – Security

• Maritime security.
• Naval interoperability.
• Maritime domain awareness.

Practice Question

• The absence of a Quad leaders’ summit in 2025 does not imply strategic irrelevance.
  Critically analyse. (15 marks)

Strategic Context

• Indo-Pacific remains the most contested geopolitical theatre.
• Intensifying U.S.–China strategic competition.
• Quad positioned as a key instrument to:
  • Uphold a rules-based order.
  • Promote a Free, Open, and Inclusive Indo-Pacific (FOIP).
• Core members: India, U.S., Japan, Australia — all maritime democracies.

Quad’s Evolution

• Formed: 2004 (Indian Ocean tsunami coordination).
• Dormancy: Post-2008 due to strategic hesitations.
• Revived: 2017, amid China’s growing regional assertiveness.
• Leader-level summits:
  • 6 summits held (2021–2024).
  • Latest: 2024, Wilmington (U.S.) — President Biden’s farewell summit.

Trump Factor in 2025

• Trump was a key architect of the 2017 revival of the Quad.
• Initial concerns:
  • “America First” doctrine.
  • Skepticism toward multilateral groupings.
• Reassurance signals:
  • U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted Quad Foreign Ministers:
    • January 2025
    • July 2025
  • Quad featured as first major diplomatic engagement of Rubio.

Why 2025 Is Called an “Interregnum” ?

• No leader-level summit for over a year.
• Political transitions:
  • U.S.: Biden → Trump.
  • Japan: New PM Sanae Takaichi (Oct 2025), yet to attend Quad summit.
• Quad lacks:
  • Treaty status.
  • Secretariat.
• Hence, leader-level summits are critical for strategic coherence.

Continuity Through Operational Initiatives

Quad-at-Sea: Ship Observer Mission

• Operationalised: June 2025
• Enhances:
  • Coast Guard cooperation.
  • Maritime domain awareness.

Ports of the Future Partnership

• First meet: October 2025, Mumbai
• Focus:
  • Sustainable and resilient port infrastructure.
  • Indo-Pacific connectivity.

Malabar Naval Exercise

• Held in Guam (2025).
• Though not formally a Quad initiative:
  • Involves all four Quad navies.
  • Enhances interoperability and maritime signalling.

Assessment of Quad’s Resilience

• No summit ≠ strategic drift.
• Continued programme delivery shows:
  • Institutional learning.
  • Operational depth beyond symbolism.
• Quad functioned as a “minilateral without paralysis”.

Why Leader-Level Summit Matters ?

• Historically, major initiatives announced at:
  • Vaccine partnership.
  • Critical technologies.
  • Maritime security.
• Diplomatic push underway:
  • U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor (Oct 2025):
    • Confirmed efforts for early 2026 summit.

Strategic Implications

• Quad remains:
  • Central to U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy.
  • Crucial balancing mechanism against unilateralism.
• 2025 tested Quad’s institutional elasticity.
• Outcome:
  • Pause, not decay.

Takeaway

• Despite leadership transitions and the absence of a summit, 2025 demonstrated the Quad’s operational resilience, underscoring its enduring relevance in sustaining a rules-based Indo-Pacific order.

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) – Notes

What is QUAD?

• Informal strategic forum of four democracies:
  • India, United States, Japan, Australia
• Objective:
  • Promote a Free, Open, Inclusive, and Rules-Based Indo-Pacific.
• Nature:
  • Minilateral, non-treaty, non-institutional grouping.
  • No secretariat, charter, or mutual defence obligation.

Origin & Evolution

• 2004:
  • Emerged from coordination during the Indian Ocean Tsunami relief.
• 2007:
  • First Quad meeting (Abe Shinzo’s “Confluence of the Two Seas” vision).
• 2008–2016:
  • Dormancy due to strategic hesitations (esp. Australia).
• 2017 Revival:
  • Restarted amid China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.

Core Strategic Objectives

• Uphold international law, especially UNCLOS.
• Counter:
  • Coercive actions.
  • Unilateral status-quo changes.
• Ensure:
  • Maritime security.
  • Freedom of navigation.
• Provide public goods in the Indo-Pacific.