With the growing anticipation surrounding the census, India is also bracing for another game-changer ‘delimitation’. Delimitation is expected to serve the purpose of ‘One Person, One Vote, One Value’ but usually gets reduced to active politics or arbitrary demarcation. Issues like the North-South divide and the challenge of accommodating women’s reservation alongside existing SC-ST quotas are already sparking heated debates across the country. But there is something that remains absent from the present debates in the Indian media, and that is ‘gerrymandering’. The term is of American origin and is used to describe the deliberate drawing of boundaries to favour a particular political party and ultimately influencing election outcomes. The strategy is used in two ways; either to concentrate or diffuse the loyal voters. Expanding the constituency boundary and concentrating the ‘loyal votes dedicated to a particular party’, so the favoured candidate wins in one constituency only instead of influencing results of multiple constituencies is called ‘packing’. Another way is to distribute the ‘loyal voters’ –of the political opposition –into different constituencies, so they get reduced to minor vote constituents only, in all of them and therefore, after this exercise of diffusion, fail to crack first-past-the-post system. This pre-delimitation anticipation has become easier with the usage of the Electronic Voting System (EVS) and past voting data available on ECI website, which then used to analyse people’s voting pattern.

This can be illustrated with the recent delimitation of Jammu & Kashmir^[2]. Initially, Jammu was allocated 37 seats and Kashmir 46. After the recent delimitation, Jammu’s seats increased to 43, while Kashmir’s rose only slightly to 47. As a result, Jammu, with 44% of the population, now holds 48% of the seats, while Kashmir, with 56% of the population, holds only 52%. Previously, the distribution was more proportional—Kashmir had 55.4% of seats and Jammu 44.5%, matching their respective population shares. The addition of six new constituencies in the Hindu-majority areas of Jammu, likely to vote in a particular direction, has raised concerns of political bias—intentional or otherwise. In Padder, Muslim votes were scattered, leading to a weaker impact. Similarly, the reservation of seats for Kashmiri Pandits furthered suspicions of partisanship.

Although the BJP won roughly the same proportion of seats in the Jammu region in both 2014 and 2024—67.6% and 67.4% respectively—it failed to win any seats in the Kashmir region in either election. However, due to the addition of six new seats exclusively in the Jammu region, the region’s share in the total assembly rose from 44.6% in 2014 to 47.8% in 2024. This meant that even without expanding its voter base or increasing its performance, the BJP’s overall seat share in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly rose from 30.1% to 32.2%.

This shift was not due to an electoral swing but a structural advantage created by the new delimitation—where additional seats in Jammu amplified its political weight. It raises serious concerns that the rebalancing of seats disproportionately boosted Jammu’s representation and, consequently, the electoral advantage of the BJP—whether intentionally or as an unintended consequence of the process^[3].

But delimitation dynamics extend beyond intra-state constituencies. By 2001, states like Tamil Nadu had five more seats than proportionate to their population, while Uttar Pradesh had eight fewer than its due share. Similarly, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar witnessed significant population growth, yet their seat allocations remained unchanged. In contrast, states like Kerala and Andhra Pradesh gained additional seats. While there’s no definitive evidence linking these patterns directly to political motives, observers have pointed to the potential influence of coalition politics. The postponement of delimitation to 2026 under the Vajpayee-led NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government is often viewed in this light. At the time, the coalition’s fragility—especially after the AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) exited the coalition within 18 months—likely made delimitation a politically sensitive move. Had southern states lost parliamentary representation due to population-based seat restructuring, it may have further strained ties with key regional allies. This led to the passage of the 84th Constitutional Amendment, extending the freeze on seat allocation based on the 1971 census until after 2026.

The growing North-South divide is increasingly shifting the political balance in favour of North India, often at the expense of the South. Makrand Paranjape, political commentator says “South is subsidising the North, bearing the burden of the latter’s population growth, unemployment, poverty, poor infrastructure, and social backwardness” ^[4] In fact, southern states are wealthier and contribute significantly to the central revenue pool but the union government has to distribute on population and need-basis. These states, which effectively carried out population control measures and have low fertility rate are already feeling penalised because of fiscal distribution by the union and can get punished again politically in a parliamentary way.

Theoretically, southern states are over-represented as of now. The wide vote-value disparity can be seen by the fact that in Uttar Pradesh, a single MP represents around three million of the population whereas, in Tamil Nadu, he/she represents around 1.8 million people^[5]. Assuming the total number of seats at 543, only 22 major states have retained the share of 524 seats. By 2026, Uttar Pradesh alone is set to hold 91 seats out of the 524 constituencies, marking a rise of 11 seats from its current 80-seat allocation. In contrast, Tamil Nadu will see its representation shrink by 10 seats from the existing 39. Additionally, the five southern states, namely Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu, are projected to lose a combined 26 seats, while four northern states, including Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, are expected to gain a total of 31 seats^[6]. This may represent the states proportionally but the fear of loss of regional political parties from parliament is concerning. It can significantly benefit political parties which perform well in northern states in terms of number of MPs.

One key reason behind the freeze on Lok Sabha and State Assembly seats was to maintain balance in presidential elections. Under Articles 54 and 55 of the Constitution, the President is elected by an electoral college comprising all MPs and MLAs, with the value of an MLA’s vote based on the population of their state. A major concern was that states with lower population growth—mainly in the South—would lose influence in both Parliament and presidential elections if seat allocation followed a conventional population-based formula. The rationale behind the freeze was to allow time for population control measures to reduce the demographic gap between the North and South. However, this objective has clearly not been achieved. Instead of narrowing, the gap has only widened over time—now raising even more serious questions about representation and fairness in the upcoming delimitation exercise. If the proposed delimitation takes place in the conventional way—allocating seats solely based on population—it could severely diminish the political voice of these states in national decision-making. In the long run, such an imbalance could lead to alienation and a sense of democratic unfairness.^[7]

There are several proposal for solutions. For instance, freezing inter-state seats once again can prevent the unintended under-representation of the south but freezing seats can’t change the parenting pattern of the states. Thus, this may not be a sustainable solution. One solution is increasing the number of parliamentary seats. Based on the 2011 Census data, calculations estimate 718 seats in the Lok Sabha and 848 representatives in parliament when projected for 2026^[8]. The new created seats will be distributed on the basis of population, without any state losing any previous seat. This increase is crucial to consider, as the principle of having one representative per 750,000 people in the Lok Sabha and one per 75,000 in the Legislative Assembly has been vastly exceeded, reaching millions in some areas unevenly across the country. Creating new constituencies can enhance the accessibility of MPs to the public, leading to better representation and governance.

Apart from suggestions made, the composition of the Delimitation Commission^[9] determines the quality and impartiality of the demarcation. The Delimitation Commission comprises of judges of Supreme Court and High Court, Chief Election Commission and politicians from different parties in each state. The relevance of politicians has continuously been questioned as ‘political interference’ or ‘explicit gerrymandering’ but the defence states the need for regional knowledge of the needs and culture of the people, which sometimes allow bureaucrats also to give their opinions. But even if gerrymandering takes place in the name of factors such as geography, communication and public convenience, no reports can be published due to constitutional safeguards. In the case of delimitation, the Commission’s verdict is final and beyond judicial review, meaning it cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court.

This makes the role of delimitation—and the neutrality of the Delimitation Commission—all the more crucial in ensuring that every Indian’s voice is truly heard, from every street to the highest corridors of power. While the existing framework already raises concerns about SC-ST and women’s reservations due to the unpredictable rotation pattern, India urgently needs an innovative and inclusive approach to reform. Without it, the growing political tension may soon become a storm brewing in plain sight. 

(The author is an independent journalist covering polity, governance, and social issues)

^[1] Verma, A. K. (2006). Delimitation in India: Methodological Issues. Economic and Political Weekly, 794-799.

^[2] Kumar, A., & Srivastava, K. Boundary Lines and Ballots: Exploring Delimitation, Electoral Dynamics, and Reservation in India

^[3] Jha, Abhishek (2024, October 9) ‘Did delimitation change the electoral game in Jammu and Kashmir?’ Hindustan Times https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-results-did-delimitation-change-the-electoral-game-in-jk-101728411603455.html

^[4] Kumar, A., & Srivastava, K. Boundary Lines and Ballots: Exploring Delimitation, Electoral Dynamics, and Reservation in India

^[5] Kumar, A., & Srivastava, K. Boundary Lines and Ballots: Exploring Delimitation, Electoral Dynamics, and Reservation in India

^[6] Patel, P. K., & Sekher, T. V. (2024). Parliamentary Delimitation: A Study on India’s Demographic Struggle for Political Representation. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 00219096241295634.

^[7] Sivaramakrishnan, K. C. (2001). Constituencies Delimitation: Deep Freeze Again?. Economic and Political Weekly, 4694-4696.

^[8] Patel, P. K., & Sekher, T. V. (2024). Parliamentary Delimitation: A Study on India’s Demographic Struggle for Political Representation. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 00219096241295634.

^[9] Singh, C. P. (2000). A century of constituency delimitation in India. Political Geography, 19(4), 517-532.

Related:

India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam

The post Delimitation: Strengthening democracy or rigging the game? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This article discusses how delimitation has become important to maintain political equity in the nation, why it is being opposed by some states now, and what can be done to overcome this deadlock.

Delimitation: why and how?

The very foundation of a robust democracy rests on the principle of fair and equitable representation. In India, this principle is periodically reinforced through a process known as delimitation – the act of fixing the limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies for legislative bodies. This crucial exercise ensures that the voice of every citizen carries roughly the same weight in the electoral process. As the nation approaches 2026, the prospect of a new delimitation exercise, mandated by the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act of 2002, has ignited discussions and debates across the political spectrum. Concerns have been particularly vocal from the southern states, highlighting the significant political ramifications this redrawing of electoral maps –merely or solely on the basis of population parameters–could entail. Punjab too has voiced its concerns over delimitation and the potential loss of its political power.

The genesis of delimitation in India lies in the fundamental need to uphold democratic ideals. The architects of the Indian Constitution envisioned this process to guarantee equal representation for all citizens. This means ensuring that the number of constituents represented by each Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) remains largely consistent across the country, in proportion to the population of the state. That means, the larger the state in terms of its population, the higher the number of people it can send to Lok Sabha. Over time, populations grow and migrate, leading to uneven demographic shifts across regions. Without periodic adjustments to constituency boundaries, some areas would become significantly overrepresented or underrepresented, thereby undermining the principle of “one person, one vote, and one value”. To address these dynamic demographic realities, Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution explicitly require the revision of parliamentary and state assembly seats following each census.

What does the Constitution say?

Article 82 mandates that, after each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) to the states and the division of each state into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by an authority determined by Parliament through law. This readjustment does not affect the current Lok Sabha until it is dissolved. The changes take effect from a date specified by the President, and until then, elections can be held based on the existing constituencies. Until the census after 2026, the allocation based on the 1971 census and the constituencies based on the 2001 census remain unchanged.

Article 81 of the Constitution talks about the composition of House of People (Lok Sabha). Article 81(2) states that, the seats allotted to each state shall be commensurate to the ratio between the number of seats and population of the state and will be the same for all states, as far as practicable. To understand this, with a simplified example: if State A has 50 million people and gets 50 seats, then State B with 30 million should get 30 seats to maintain the same ratio. This has however been changed with the freeze on delimitation under Article 82.

Article 170 outlines the composition of the Legislative Assemblies of states. Each Legislative Assembly must have between 60 and 500 members, chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies. The constituencies are divided in such a way that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, as far as practicable, the same throughout the state. After each census, the total number of seats and the division into constituencies are readjusted by an authority and in a manner determined by Parliament through law. This readjustment does not affect the existing Assembly until its dissolution.

India has witnessed four delimitation exercises since its independence. The first was conducted in 1952 based on the 1951 census, followed by exercises in 1963 (based on the 1961 census), 1973 (based on the 1971 census), and most recently in 2002 (based on the 2001 census). These commissions were tasked with redrawing constituency boundaries to ensure a more equitable distribution of population across electoral units. Notably, the delimitation exercise of 2002, while adjusting constituency boundaries, maintained the total number of Lok Sabha seats at 543, a figure that has remained constant since the 1973 delimitation. The table below illustrates the history of delimitation commissions in India:

What lies at the core of the issue now?

The journey towards the upcoming delimitation in 2026 has been marked by significant political decisions, particularly the freezing of the process for several decades. In 1976, during the Emergency, the government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, which froze the delimitation of Lok Sabha and state assembly constituencies until after the first census following the year 2000. A primary motivation behind this freeze was to encourage states to actively pursue population control measures without fearing a reduction in their political representation in the Lok Sabha. The logic was that states making progress in family planning should not be penalised by losing parliamentary seats to states with higher population growth rates. Subsequently, the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 extended this freeze until the first census taken after 2026. This extension reflected the continued concerns about disparities in population growth across different regions of the country. Southern states, having achieved greater success in implementing population control measures, were particularly apprehensive about a delimitation exercise based on more recent census data, fearing a potential decrease in their representation compared to states with higher population growth.

Implications of delimitation on the Indian Polity: lessons from past projections

The impending delimitation exercise after 2026 carries profound implications for India’s democratic polity, potentially reshaping the political landscape of the nation. One of the most significant anticipated impacts is the shift in the allocation of Lok Sabha seats among states. Given the demographic trends, with northern states generally experiencing higher population growth compared to their southern counterparts, projections indicate a potential increase in the number of parliamentary seats for states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, while southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana might witness marginal gains or even a decrease in their representation. This demographic redistribution could lead to a significant shift in political power within the Lok Sabha, granting more influence to the more populous northern states. Adding to this possibility is the speculation about an overall increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats, potentially linked to the enhanced capacity of the new parliament building. While an increase in the total number of seats might cushion the impact on southern states, the relative balance of power is still likely to tilt towards the north.

Beyond the allocation of general seats, the delimitation exercise will also impact the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The number of constituencies reserved for these communities is determined based on their proportion of the total population in each state. Consequently, the delimitation process will likely lead to adjustments in the geographical distribution of these reserved seats to align with the latest census data on the SC and ST populations.

Southern States and opposition to delimitation: key concerns and arguments

These anticipated shifts have understandably generated concerns among certain states, particularly in South India. The apprehension stems from the possibility of reduced parliamentary representation, which could impact their ability to effectively voice regional concerns and influence national policymaking. A key argument put forth by these states is that they have successfully implemented population control measures and have also made significant contributions to the national economy. They argue against a scenario where their progress in these areas could lead to a diminishment of their political clout, potentially disrupting the federal balance.

There is also a concern regarding the potential impact of delimitation on the representation of Muslim communities in certain constituencies. The redrawing of boundaries or the designation of constituencies as reserved could inadvertently affect the existing representation patterns of religious minorities in specific regions. In the recently concluded delimitation process of Assam—a state with 35% of Muslim population— the number of assembly constituencies in Muslim-majority districts has decreased while those in areas inhabited by communities considered indigenous to Assam has increased. The state also saw its hard-line Hindutva Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of the BJP call for a delimitation “that should be done in such a manner that the rights of indigenous people are protected.” If Assam’s recent delimitation—where Muslim-majority constituencies shrank while those in indigenous-dominated areas expanded—serves as a precedent for the rest of India, the process raises serious concerns. When paired with the ruling establishment’s open hostility toward minorities, exemplified by hate speeches from leaders including the Prime Minister during the 2024 General Elections, it becomes difficult to trust the government’s intentions or the impartiality of the institutions overseeing delimitation, especially vis-à-vis representation of minorities.

Furthermore, the upcoming delimitation is intrinsically linked to the implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act, which mandates 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha. This landmark legislation is expected to be implemented after the delimitation process is completed in 2026, as the finalisation of constituency boundaries is a prerequisite for reserving seats for women.

The WHYs on both sides

Those who call for delimitation wants it for simple purpose that it was the original design to preserve and further democratic functioning and legitimacy of the state. Delimitation would allow more people to be represented by their own representative as the population grows in each constituency.

For example, under 2011 census—Uttar Pradesh has 80 Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha) for 19.98 Crore people. Means, a Lok Sabha MP for almost 25 lakh people. Similarly, the combined Andhra Pradesh state had 42 Lok Sabha MPs for 8.46 Crore people, one Lok Sabha MP per 20 Lakh people. Similarly for Kerala, there is one Lok Sabha MP per 16 lakh people, according to the 2011 Census. This means that the political will of 16 lakh people in Kerala is equal to 25 lakh people in Uttar Pradesh despite the latter being significantly higher. Delimitation, if carried out, would ensure that those extra 10 lakh people are also represented better.

However, the postponement of delimitation was agreed to by all the parties since then and last time it was done so, was in 2001 via the 84^th Constitutional Amendment Act. Therefore, the question of its democratic legitimacy does not arise. A major concern surrounding delimitation is its potential to reshape political influence at the national level. Southern states, where population growth has slowed, fear that losing Lok Sabha seats would weaken their voice in Parliament.

In a country with strong fiscal centralisation—where the Union government controls revenue collection and redistribution—political power at the Centre translates directly into financial security. This concern is reflected in the recent budgetary allocations to Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, where the NDA’s survival in the Lok Sabha rests on the mercy of regional allies TDP and JDU—an arrangement that has conveniently translated into generous financial support from the Centre.

Therefore, fewer seats could mean less leverage in securing resources, leaving these states at a disadvantage. The possibility of political manipulation through the strategic redrawing of constituency boundaries, also known as gerrymandering, is another concern highlighted by experts.

This issue is compounded by the original intent behind the freeze on delimitation. It was designed to prevent states that successfully implemented family planning measures from being penalized with reduced representation. While the extended freeze has been widely accepted, the core principle remains sensitive—why should states that stabilised their populations now be at risk of losing political power? To them, this feels less like a neutral realignment and more like a penalty for progress.

What are the proposed solutions?

Various alternative solutions have been proposed to mitigate the potential negative consequences of a purely population-based delimitation. These include suggestions to increase the total number of Lok Sabha seats to accommodate the growing population without reducing representation for any state, reforming the Rajya Sabha to provide greater weightage to states and ensure a more balanced federal representation, decentralising more powers to the states to reduce their dependence on parliamentary representation, and even considering a permanent freeze on interstate redistribution of seats. In the midst of these debates, the ruling establishment has offered assurances that no southern state will experience a loss of seats in the upcoming delimitation exercise.

In particular, the increase of seats overall has been widely suggested since that would not decrease the existing seats for southern states and for states with higher populations, higher seats would secure equitable representation. Even in this case too, a study has revealed that there would be a stark divide between Northern and Southern states. In this paradigm, the five southern states would have 164 seats i.e., 35 more than their current total seats. In the same projection, only Uttar Pradesh would have 143 seats.

Is there a structural issue?

Beyond numbers, delimitation also shapes India’s federal structure. Lok Sabha seats are allocated by population to uphold political equality, but the Constitution does not guarantee fixed representation for states. With each delimitation exercise, the balance of power shifts. A rigid population-based approach, without reforms in fiscal and political decentralisation, risks further centralising authority in the Union government—potentially undermining the very spirit of federalism.

This problem is essentially a contest between the rights of states as federal units and rights of individuals as equal citizens in the political process. One cannot come at the cost of another. However, there is no balancing provision, as of now, which can uphold the rights of states as federal units, where their voices could be given political heft irrespective of their population. This lack of political weight for states solely based on their existence, rather than population, reflects a spill over of the Constitution’s unitary tendencies. If the issue of delimitation is to be solved, once and for all, there needs to be a structural solution which deems states as entities with considerable political power, unlike the current state of things where the Centre can constitutionally redraw state boundaries at will, with or without consultation with the state legislatures. Without addressing such structural problems for states in fiscal, administrative and political arenas, even if delimitation issue is somehow solved, many more stress points will present themselves in the near future from these arenas.

What could be done to solve the structural issue?

If political power in Lok Sabha is what states fear of losing because their interests will not be protected, then more avenues will have to be created to ensure that states secure political power. Lok Sabha cannot be the sole place where states feel secure with their power.

To enhance regional representation, the Rajya Sabha should have greater legislative authority, including higher oversight on national resource allocation. Membership per state should reflect human development, and linguistic diversity, not just population. Rajya Sabha should truly become a house of the states where their concerns are given the utmost importance.

Decentralisation must go beyond constitutional provisions by mandating states to transfer at least 50% of centrally sponsored funds to local governments with decision-making autonomy. A National Local Governance Commission—having effective representation from states, should oversee resource distribution and capacity building, ensuring inclusive and effective governance.

Conclusion

As the nation approaches 2026, the redrawing of electoral boundaries is not merely a technical adjustment but a transformative moment that could recalibrate political power, reshape fiscal priorities, and redefine the social contract between the Union and states. The debate transcends partisan politics, exposing deeper fissures in India’s federal architecture and challenging the delicate balance between individual rights and collective regional aspirations.

At this juncture, the delimitation exercise presents not just a challenge but an opportunity—to reimagine federalism as a dynamic, equitable partnership rather than a hierarchical contract. The path forward requires dialogue that transcends regionalism or majoritarianism, grounded in constitutional morality and a shared vision of inclusive nationhood. Only by harmonizing the democratic principle of equal vote-weight with the federal promise of diverse voices can India ensure that its electoral map reflects both its people and their pluralistic aspirations. In this balance lies the future of the world’s largest democracy.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam

Protests erupt over ECI’s new delimitation draft in Assam which is embroiled in controversy

Assam: Delimitation of Assembly, Parliamentary Seats, Merging of Districts Raise Apprehensions

The post India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delimitation Commission set up in 2019 for the purpose of redrawing the parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir, has been granted an extension of one year. Unless these constituencies are drawn, Assembly elections cannot be conducted in the Union Territory. The panel was commissioned in March 2020 and its first meeting was held in February 2021.

The panel headed by retired Supreme Court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai, has been tasked with redrawing Assembly constituencies for not just J&K but also Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. The one year extension, however, is only for J&K. 

Commissioned under section 3 of the Delimitation Act 2002, the Commission has the mandate to delimit the constituencies of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, which bifurcated the state into union territories of J&K and Ladakh.

The Commission is composed of 5 MPs of the erstwhile state, as ex-officio members, but it has been boycotted by National Conference which had 3 members on the panel, namely, Farooq Abdullah, Hasnain Masoodi and Akbar Lone. The other members include BJP MPs Jitendra Singh and Jugal Kishore, Election Commissioner Sushil Chandra and J&K Election Commissioner KK Sharma. As per The Tribune, the National Conference said it would not be part of the proceedings called in exercise of powers under a law whose constitutional validity was under judicial scrutiny.

As per The Tribune, the last delimitation of J&K was held in 1994 and1995 when seats were raised from 76 to 87.  Since 2002, the exercise has remained frozen. As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, the number of seats in the union territory’s assembly have been increased from 107 to 114, out of which 24 seats are in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Thus, effectively, the number of assembly seats for which elections can be held will go up from 83 to 90.

Related:

Expression of dissent not seditious: SC

J&K HC: Notice issued in plea challenging “maximum” period of detention under PSA

National Conference leader Hilal Lone arrested under UAPA

The post Delimitation delayed in J&K  appeared first on SabrangIndia.