Indian Constitutional Law Review [ISSN: 2456-8325] …iclrq.in/editions/jul18/Art3.pdfIndian Constitutional Law Review [ISSN: 2456-8325] Edition V [July 2018] Published by Agradoot

Indian Constitutional Law Review [ISSN: 2456-8325] Edition V [July 2018]

Published by Agradoot Web Technologies LLP

30

DELIMITATION OF ELECTION CONSTITUENCIES: AN

ANALYTICAL & DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

Shipra Sayal

Student, 2nd

Year, B.Com. LL.B., Nirma University, India

ABSTARCT

Periodic restructuring of constituencies tends to under-representation of states in parliament

practicing efficient family planning, at the same time undermining the principles of “Equal Suffrage”

and “Proportionality”.69

The sole aim of this article is to determine the most justifiable and equitable

measure for veritable representation without undermining the principles of equal suffrage &

proportional representation.70

It is hypothesized that restructuring of constituencies after every census is a disincentive to states

practicing efficient family control mechanisms.

This study is descriptive analytical study as it has focused on the analysis of current situation of

Delimitation of Election Constituencies in order to find out an answer to the research problem. The

author has followed a qualitative approach, and the research is based on secondary data such as

various articles & published reports.

The scope of this paper is limited to the analysis of the relevant literature on the subject and general

comments and recommendations along with the pertinent decisions of national bodies. Due to the

inclusion and wide array of sub-topics under the research topic a detailed analysis of all prospective

perspectives cannot be taken into account. Primary data collection for the research topic cannot take

place due to the contemporariness, yet dormancy of the topic.

INTRODUCTION

“The ballot is stronger than the bullet.”

-Abraham Lincoln

Elections make the ultimate contribution to the democratic governance. As a result, their

importance in this frame-work becomes paramount. In this scenario, it becomes highly

essential that elections are free and fair.71

Electoral delimitation has the potential to seriously

impact the fairness of an election. Delimitation is the redrawing of the boundaries of

69 V. Venkatesan, A Flawed Move, THE FRONTLINE (Feb. 10, 2018, 2:10 PM),

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1912/19120320.htm. 70 Today’s Paper, Delimitation Notifications Comes into effect, THE HINDU (Feb. 10, 2018, 2:08 PM),

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/Delimitation-notification-comes-into-effect/article15169974.ece. 71 Opinions, In the Constitution We Trust, INDIAN EXPRESS (Feb. 9, 2018, 12:04 PM),

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/in-the-constitution-we-trust-5033953/.

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/in-the-constitution-we-trust-5033953/



31

parliamentary or assembly constituencies to make sure that there are, as near as practicable,

the same number of people in each constituency. In India, boundaries are meant to be

examined after the ten-yearly census to reflect changes in population, for which Parliament

by law establishes an independent Delimitation Commission, made up of the Chief Election

Commissioner and two judges or former judges of the Supreme Court or any of the High

Courts. However, under the Constitutional Amendment of 1976, delimitation was suspended

until after the census of 2001, ostensibly so that States' family-planning programmes would

not affect their political representation in the Parliament. This has led to wide discrepancies

in the size of constituencies, with the largest having over 25,00,000 electors, and the smallest

less than 50,000.72

Delimitation whether for the first time or during periodic adjustment,

requires a well-informed, transparent, inclusive and accountable decision-making process.

Good practice and general standards of electoral decision-making provide guidance on how

the delimitation process should proceed.

The Delimitation Commission aims to create constituencies which have roughly the same

population, subject to geographical considerations and the boundaries of the States and

administrative areas.

HISTORY OF DELIMITATION & STATUTORY REGULATIONS

Delimitation means “the act or process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial

constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body”. The high-powered

authority which has been assigned the task of delimitation is known as the “Delimitation

Commission” or the “Boundary Commission”. The main purpose of undertaking delimitation

is to rationalize the structure and composition of the electoral constituencies. The objective of

the Delimitation Commission is to remove the gross inequalities in the population size of the

Constituencies, on the principle of “One vote and one value”. This merely means that if there

is a constituency which is over populated the impact of a voter reduces drastically. This

means that one vote in an over populated constituency will not have a similar unit of value to

that of a constituency having less population/voters. Thus, the value of a voter is simply

undermined. To ensure that this phenomenon does not take place, the Delimitation

Commission is established to ensure proper voter & population count in a constituency. The

same can better understood with the illustration referred in Annexure A.

72 Sunil Gatade, Delimitation Process now gets CCPA nod, ECONOMIC TIMES (Feb. 9, 2018, 12:20 PM),

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delimitation-process-now-gets-

ccpanod/articleshow/2673204.cms.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delimitation-process-now-gets-ccpa-nod/articleshow/2673204.cms



32

Here (Refer to Annexure A), constituency “A” has 5,000 people and 3,000 voters in an area

of 2 sq. km, whereas constituency “B” has 15,000 people and 10,000 voters in an area of 4

sq. km. Thus, upon calculation it can be found that “A” has 1,500 voters per sq. km [3,000

voters/2 Sq. Km.]. While “B” has 2,500 voters per sq. km [10,000 voters/4 Sq. Km.].

Therefore, the value of one voter of constituency “A” has more value as compared to that of a

voter of constituency “B”. Thus, here, the role of the Delimitation Commission comes into

picture. The Delimitation Commission will fix the boundaries of constituencies “A” and “B”

in such a way that the proportion of population per sq. km. in the constituencies becomes

equitable & justifiable.

The above illustration has one assumption:

❖ The absolute vote count is a statistical figure which is readily available.

However, that is not the case. The Delimitation Commission ascertains its boundaries based

on the number of absolute heads, i.e. population, which is a statistical figure made available

through the Census. This is a major flaw in setting up and fixing of boundaries.

Between the 1971 Census and 2001 Census, the population of India had increased by more

than eighty-seven per cent.73

Migration to the urban or industrialized areas also made such

increase skewed in direction and intensity. Thus, there was an imminent need, to bring the

population of the various constituencies to a uniform size, as far as practicable. Moreover, the

population of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes has also undergone changes in

various dimensions in the past three decades.74

In some States, their proportion to the total

population has changed, and in many cases their population has shifted to other areas in

search of work or due to other demographic pressures. The new delimitation exercise is

aimed at addressing these important concerns, and providing appropriate solutions. The

various Acts passed are stated in the table below [Refer to Annexure B].

The orders of the Delimitation Commission have the force of law and cannot be called in

question before any court. These orders come into force on the date specified by the President

of India. The copies of its orders are laid before the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative

Assembly concerned; however, they do not have the power to amend the proposal made.

There were various amendments made to Constitution, especially the 84th

& 87th

Amendments,

the cumulative effect of which is stated as follows:

73 Census, Vital Statistics, CENSUS (Mar. 03, 2018, 12:08 PM), http://www.censusindia.net/. 74 Id.



33

The total number of existing seats which have been already allocated to various States

in the House of the People on the basis of census conducted in the year 1971 shall

remain unchanged till the first census to be taken after the year 2026 i.e. 2031.

The total number of existing seats in the Legislative Assemblies of all States as fixed on

the basis of 1971 census shall also remain unaltered till the first census to be taken after

the year 2026 i.e. 2031.

The number of seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled

Tribes (STs) in the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies shall be equal

to their proportion to the 2001 census.

COMPOSITION OF DELIMITATION COMMISSION:

The composition of the Delimitation Commission has been provided under Section 3 of the

Delimitation Act, 2002. It states that one of the members shall be a person who is or had been

a Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Such person would be the Chairperson of the

Commission and must be appointed by the Central Government. The second member must be

the Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner nominated by the Chief

Election Commissioner. The third member must be the State Election Commissioner of the

concerned State.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Art. 81 – Composition of the House of People

Art. 82 – Readjustment after each Census

Art. 170 – Composition of Legislative Assemblies

Art. 330 – Reservation of SCs and STs in the House of People

Art. 332 – Reservation of SCs and STs

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

A significant Act which governs the allocation of seats and the delimitation of constituencies

for the purpose of election to the House of the People and the State Legislatures is the

Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. Section 3 of the said Act regulates the “Allocation of

seats in the House of the People”. Section 7 of the Act deals with the “total number of seats in

Legislative Assemblies and Assembly Constituencies”. Section 9 empowers as well as

curtails certain powers of the Election Commission for delimitation of boundaries. Thus, the

Representation of Peoples Act is an important Act regulating, governing & empowering the



34

Delimitation Commission. It also lays down certain procedures to be met with during the

process of delimitation.

Under the provisions of Articles 82 and 170(3) of the Constitution, as amended by the

Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001, the Parliament has enacted the

Delimitation Act, 2002.As a result of this Act, a Delimitation Commission has been set up to

re-adjust the division of each State and Union Territory into territorial constituencies for the

purpose of elections to the House of the People and to the State Legislative Assemblies on the

basis of Census figures, as ascertained by the Census 2001 [as envisaged under the

Constitution (Eighty-seventh) Amendment Act, 2003]. The Delimitation Commission has, so

far, completed the delimitation exercise in 25 States/Union Territories.

Justice Kuldip Singh, heading the Delimitation Commission of 2002, concluded that the

constituencies should be redrawn after every Census so as to maintain the electoral value of

each vote which essentially guarantees the principle of “Fair Elections”, for giving effect to

which the boundaries were redrawn with no effect on the number of seats.75

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CONTROVERSIES

In recognition of the importance of delimitation, the signatories to the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] codified this principle in Article 25[b], which provides

for the principle of equality of votes. Also, paragraph 21 of General Comment 25 (which is

the authoritative interpretation of the ICCPR) states that the vote of one elector should be

equal to the vote of another, the drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of allocating

votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate against any group, and

should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right of citizens to choose their

representatives freely.76

India is a signatory to ICCPR.

Tracing the history of delimitation in India, following facts can be observed:

- The present-day seat allocation system is based on the 1971 Census.

- During 1970 India was faced by a humongous problem of population explosion for

which State Governments were given a goal of achieving a fertility rate of 2.1% before

2001.

75 Express News Service, Rotate Scheduled Caste Seats, INDIAN EXPRESS (Mar. 03, 2018, 12:08 PM),

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/rotate-scheduled-caste-seats-says-delimitation-commission/313681/. 76 Handbook on International Human Rights, Core International Human Rights Treaties, Optional Protocols &

Core ILO Conventions Ratified by India (Mar. 03, 2018, 12:18 PM),

http://nhrc.nic.in/documents/india_ratification_status.pdf.



35

- The southern states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka seemed to have performed well with

a fertility rate of 2%, whereas it was as high as 4% in the state of Bihar.

- Thereby there was a huge hue and cry coming from best performing States regarding

their representation in the Parliament, following which the Central Government froze

the number of seats till the first Census after 2026, which will be taking place in 2031.

- During this time lag of 1971-2003, there was a variance in population in many parts of

the country like Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi, given the factors of migration. Moreover,

even in Kerala, there were discrepancies in constituencies’ composition, as some had

higher population growth than the others due to urban migration and uneven growth

rate, for e.g. Malapuram, Kannur etc.

- As a result of this, some States gained by virtue of ineffective family planning and

some States were at a disadvantage because of the sincere execution of family planning.

- The four southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala

account for 21% of the population but have 129 Lok Sabha seats whereas Uttar Pradesh

and Bihar accounts for 25.1% of the population but have 120 Lok Sabha seats.

- The states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand

Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand accounts for 45.5% of population but have just 214 seats

which is 37 seats less than what they would get, if allocation is done on the basis of

2011 Census.

- The trio of most populated states of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar stand under-

represented by as much as 31 seats in Lok Sabha.77

- The seats allocation based on 1971 Census was on a ratio of 1:10,00,000 i.e. one seat

for 10 lakh people, but basing on the 2011 census, it comes out to be 1:22.6 lakh people

following which Tamil Nadu turns out to be the greatest loser, losing the representation

by 1.4%, and the biggest gainers will be the States of Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar

Pradesh.

- The Ladakh Lok Sabha constituency is the largest Lok Sabha constituency in India in

terms of area, with 173266.37 sq. km. and 1.59 lakhs Voters.78

77 FP Editors, Unequal Democracy South Gets More Seats, FIRST POST (Mar. 03, 2018, 12:28 PM),

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/unequal-democracy-south-gets-more-seats-than-it-deserves-in-ls-10121.html.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/unequal-democracy-south-gets-more-seats-than-it-deserves-in-ls-10121.html

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/unequal-democracy-south-gets-more-seats-than-it-deserves-in-ls-10121.html



36

- Lakshadweep, is the smallest Lok Sabha constituency by number, having 39033

voters.79

- Parliamentary Constituency with largest number of electors - 3368399 [Outer Delhi].80

- Parliamentary Constituency with smallest Area - Chandni Chowk [Delhi] - 10.59 sq.

km.81

The census 2011 depicts an altogether different scenario.82

This can be better understood with

the help of the table given in Annexure C.

ANALYSING THE FERTILITY INDEX:

[Refer to Annexure D]

The development of the Southern States, and the informed opinion of their women in family

planning, given the high literacy rates, helps them it in outshining north.

DELIMITATION OF RESERVED SEATS:

[Refer to Annexure E]

In 1971, the Schedule Castes had 79 seats in the Lok Sabha, whereas under the 2001 Census,

the Schedule Castes should have 88 seats in Lok Sabha, given the 1.6% rise.

In 1971, the Schedule Tribes had 41 seats in the Lok Sabha, whereas under the 2001 Census,

the Schedule Tribes will have 45 seats, given the 1.3% rise.

Thus, any change that occurs due to this difference will ultimately lead to the conversion of

general seats into reserved seats in the States of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand,

Karnataka and Maharashtra, and in the States of Assam, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, supposedly,

some of the reserved seats shall be converted into general seats.83

PROBABLE METHODS OF DELIMITATION:

The Delimitation Commissions of 1952, 1962, 1972 and 2002 have remained quiet on a very

crucial issue of the criteria used for delimitation in India. There are various ways in which

boundaries can be redrawn –

78 Election Commission of India, ELECTION COMMISSION (Mar. 03, 2018, 12:35 PM),

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/statistical_reportge2014.aspx. 79 Id. at 12. 80 Id. 81 Id. 82

Id. at 11. 83 T. Hanumanth v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1207 (India); P. Mastanaiah v. Delimitation

Commissioner, A.I.R. 1969 A.P. 1 (India).

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/statistical_reportge2014.aspx

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/statistical_reportge2014.aspx



37

i. Jefferson Method: The total population is divided by the number of seats and each

state is assigned its quota, disregarding any fractional remainder.

ii. Hamilton Method: Members are first apportioned according to each state’s quota,

disregarding any fractional remainders, and then, any leftover seats are assigned to the

states with the largest fractional remainders.

iii. Hill & Huntington Method: This formula allocates the remainder of seats among the

states in a way that ensures the smallest relative difference between any pair of states in

the population of a district and in the number of people per representative.

iv. Quota Method: In the quota method, first, the number of the seats for the legislature is

assumed to be fixed; then, the population of the state is divided by that number to get

the national average of the quota of population for one seat.

v. Webster Method: In this method first the size of the legislature is chosen. Then a

divisor x is chosen whereby, when the population of the state is divided by x and the

resulting number is rounded off to the nearest integer. The results add up to the chosen

size of the legislature.

It has been suggested that Webster Method suits a country like India best, propagating the

value of one vote is equal to one value. This also remains unaffected by Alabama Paradox

[here, the allocation of seats changes with the introduction of a new state, even when the total

number of seats in a house is allowed to rise].

THE PROBLEM OF GERRYMANDERING:

Another critical issue in this context is drawing up of boundaries in favour of a particular

political party. Here, either the concentration of votes takes place in few districts, i.e.

packing, or diffusion of votes take place across few districts, i.e. dilution.

In the case of the first delimitation carried out by the offices of the President of India, the

delimitation was found to be so unsatisfactory by the then Law Minister, C. Biswas that he

lamented, “The President’s Order, which was laid before the Parliament were simply torn

into pieces by the Parliament, whose decisions seem to have been actuated more by the

convenience of individual members of the House rather than by the considerations of general

interest”. Even the late Jaiprakash Narayan complained that the “task [of delimitation] had



38

been practically left in the hands of a single party, Congress”. Even during subsequent

delimitations, the same charges continued to be levelled against the exercise of delimitation.84

INTER-NATION ANALYSIS

In the international diaspora, the Institute of Democracy & Electoral Assistance [IDEA]85

recommends the legal framework to be followed by various countries while delimiting its

boundaries. Various countries in the world have undertaken the delimitation process. The

mechanisms adopted by them are described under:

Cracking involves spreading voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny

them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district. This is undertaken by

spreading and bifurcating the voters in an urban area among several districts wherein the

majority of voters are suburban, on the presumption that the two groups would vote

differently, and the suburban voters would be far more likely to get their way in the elections.

Packing is to concentrate as and over populate many voters of one type [the ones which are

voting for the same party or the people of a particular community] into a single electoral

constituency to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases, this may be done to

obtain representation for a community of common interest (such as to create a

majority/minority district), rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of

ineffectiveness (and, when minority groups are involved, to avoid likely lawsuits charging

racial discrimination). When the party controlling the delimitation process has a state-wide

majority, packing is usually not necessary to attain partisan advantage; the minority party can

generally be "cracked" everywhere.

Various countries have followed delimitation in the following way:

Australia:

Delimitation has not been a problem in Australia. The interests of any community have not

been diluted because of delimitation. However, there were a few controversies where

delimitation took place such that votes supporting one party were packed in a constituency,

resulting in reducing their effectiveness in other electoral constituencies.

Singapore:

84 AK Verma, Delimitation in India Methodological issues, ECONOMICAL & POLITICAL WEEKLY (Mar. 03,

2018, 12:21 PM),

http://www.democracyasia.org/resourcesondemocracy/Delimitation%20in%20India%20Methodological%20Iss

ues_akverma.pdf. 85 Institute of Democracy & Electoral Assistance, IDEA (Mar. 03, 2018, 12:38 PM), https://www.idea.int/.

http://www.democracy-asia.org/resourcesondemocracy/Delimitation%20in%20India%20-Methodological%20Issues_akverma.pdf

https://www.idea.int/

https://www.idea.int/



39

Singapore has been one such country where, in the recent decades, critics have accused the

ruling People's Action Party (PAP) of unfair electoral practices to maintain significant

majorities in the Parliament of Singapore. The Prime-Minister was accused of having

indulged in hampering the independence of the Election Commission of Singapore. There

have also been many accusations involving the ruling party having the power to decide

polling districts and polling sites through electoral engineering, based on poll results in

previous elections.

United States:

The United States of America has been among the first countries having a representative

government, which is elected. There have been many instances where delimitation has taken

place in order to support a common intention or motive, or the agenda of a singular party.

One such instance was the admission of the Dakota Territory as two states instead of one.

Here, the electoral count which Dakota had increased from three to six because of the rules

for representation in the Electoral College which stated that each state should have at least

three electorates.

The State legislatures have also been accused used “gerrymandering” along racial lines both

to decrease and increase minority representation in state governments and congressional

delegations.

With the advent of Civil Rights Movements and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of

1965, federal law enforcement and protection of suffrage for all citizens were introduced. It

was ensured that Gerrymandering for the purpose of reducing the political influence of a

racial or ethnic minority group was prohibited. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was

passed, some states created "majority-minority" districts to enhance minority voting strength.

This practice, also called "affirmative gerrymandering", was supposed to redress historic

discrimination and ensure that ethnic minorities would gain some seats and representation in

government.

Rather than allowing more political influence, some states have shifted re-districting

authority from politicians and given it to non-partisan re-districting commissions.

Thus, delimitation has been used as a tool to ensure political power and reduce diversification

of vote count. This has led to concentration of voters of the then opposition party to ensure

that the power of the present governing party sustains. While delimiting various

constituencies, it must be ensured that such malpractices do not take place. In India, it must



40

also be ensured that the Delimitation Commission is an independent body free from prejudice

and political pressure. This must be done to ensure a non-partial, fair and justifiable limitation

of boundaries, which would ensure that a citizen can fairly use his basic right to vote, which

is the foundation of any democracy. Thus, the role of the Delimitation Commission is not

mere statistical analysis but also but also ensuring a justifiable approach while undertaking

such activity.

CONCLUSION

The real problem does not lie in whether delimitation should be done or not, but rather in

what is the effective way to carry it out in the most neutral way. 86

After analysing the statistical aspect, it appears that delimitation should not be done after

each Census as it will defeat the very foundation of public policies such as Family Planning.23

It is the Government’s mandate and effective execution of the same should not be punished in

the form of reduced representation.87

The vision of the law-makers then in 1976 was that by

2026, the population of India would stabilise and thus, the Census of 2031 will provide a true

picture of the composition of India’s population. The contention that larger population should

have larger representation so as to not to dilute the principle of proportionality,88

if

implemented, shall father political vulnerability, where every community shall just aim at

increasing population so as to have a greater say in political representation.89

Thus, to

promote the policies undertaken in public interest to eliminate social malpractices, it becomes

necessary to protect their execution.

ANNEXURE A

86 R. P. Bhalla, ELECTIONS IN INDIA (1950- 1972) (S Chand and Co. 1973); David L Horn, Challenging Partisan

Gerrymandering: The Case of Millar v. State of Ohio, VOTING AND DEMOCRACY REPORT (Chapter 6), 1995;

Nagesh Jha, Delimitation of Constituencies: A Plea for Some Effective Criteria, 24 IJPL 129-47 (1963). 87 Alistair McMillan, Delimitation, Democracy and End of Constitutional Freeze, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL

WEEKLY, April 8, 2000, at 1271-76. 88 Alistair Mcmillan, A Constitutional Fraud? The Ninety-First Amendment and the Boundaries of the Indian

Democracy, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, April 14, 2001. 89Alistair Mcmillan, Changing the Boundaries of Indian Democracy,

http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/mcmillan/delimitationMcmillan.pdf; Peter Watson, Boundary Delimitation:

Reapportionment and Redistricting in the USA, ACE PROJECT.



41

ANNEXURE B

ANNEXURE C

PROPORTION OF STATE-WISE POPULATION V/S REPRESENTATION IN LOK

SABHA

PROPORTION LOK SABHA SEATS

A

B

15000 People

5000 People



42

STATE POPULATION LOKSABHA

SEATS

ACTUAL IDEAL DIFFERENCE

UTTAR

PRADESH

16.5 14.7 80 90 -10

MAHARASHTRA 9.3 8.8 48 50 -2

BIHAR 8.6 7.4 40 47 -7

WEST BENGAL 7.6 7.7 42 41 1

ANDHRA

PRADESH

7.0 7.7 42 38 4

MADHYA

PRADESH

6.0 5.3 29 33 -4

TAMIL NADU 6.0 7.2 39 32 7

RAJASTHAN 5.7 4.6 25 31 -6

KARNATAKA 5.1 5.2 28 27 1

GUJARAT 5.0 4.8 26 27 -1

ANNEXURE D

RANK STATE FERTILITY

RATE

2013

FERTILITY

RATE

2010

CHANGE

(10-13)

FERTILITY

RATE

2004

CHANGE

(04-13)

1 West Bengal 1.6 1.8 -0.2 2.2 -0.6

2 Punjab 1.7 1.8 -0.1 2.2 -0.5

2 Himachal

Pradesh

1.7 1.8 -0.1 2.1 -0.4



43

2 Tamil Nadu 1.7 1.7 0 1.8 -0.1

2 Delhi 1.7 1.9 -0.2 2.3 -0.6

6 Kerala 1.8 1.8 0 1.7 0.1

6 Andhra

Pradesh

1.8 1.8 0 2.1 -0.3

6 Maharashtra 1.8 1.9 0 2.2 -0.4

9 Karnataka 1.9 2 -0.1 2.3 -0.4

9 Jammu &

Kashmir

1.9 2 -0.1 2.4 -0.5

11 Odisha 2.1 2.3 -0.2 2.6 -0.5

12 Haryana 2.2 2.3 -0.1 3 -0.8

13 Gujarat 2.3 2.5 -0.2 2.8 -0.5

14 Assam 2.3 2.5 -0.2 2.9 -0.6

15 Chhattisgarh 2.6 2.8 -0.2 3.3 -0.7

16 Jharkhand 2.7 3 -0.3 3.5 -0.8

17 Rajasthan 2.8 3.1 -0.3 3.7 -0.9

17 Madhya-

Pradesh

2.9 3.2 -0.3 3.7 -0.8

19 Uttar-

Pradesh

3.1 3.5 -0.4 4.4 -1.3



44

20 Bihar 3.4 3.7 -0.3 4.3 -0.9

- India 2.3 2.5 -0.2 2.9 -0.6

ANNEXURE E

YEAR POPULATION OF

SCHEDULECASTE

POPULATION OF

SCHEDULE TRIBES

1971 14.6% of total population 6.9% of total population

2001 16.2% of total population 8.2% of total population

RISE/FALL 1.6% rise 1.3% rise

Documents

Indian Constitutional Law Review [ISSN: 2456-8325] …iclrq.in/editions/jul18/Art3.pdfIndian Constitutional Law Review [ISSN: 2456-8325] Edition V [July 2018] Published by Agradoot