What is gerrymandering, and why is everyone suddenly talking about it?
A once-obscure political term is now at the centre of an explosive parliamentary session, as delimitation and women’s reservation get debated
Parliament is in a three-day special session beginning today, April 16, to debate a Constitution Amendment Bill that the government says will finally deliver 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. But the Opposition has a different word for what’s happening: gerrymandering. Here’s what that means, and why it matters.
What exactly is gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering is the deliberate manipulation of electoral constituency boundaries to give one political party an unfair advantage over others. It works through two basic techniques — “cracking”, which splits voters of a particular party or community across multiple districts to dilute their influence in each, and “packing”, which concentrates them into as few seats as possible so they win those heavily but lose everywhere else.
Also read: BJP-leaning states to gain from delimitation, says Yogendra Yadav | AI With Sanket
How did the name come up?
The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a bizarrely shaped district. He was accused of a partisan redrawing of an Essex County district, which resembled a salamander in a political cartoon published by the Boston Gazette. Gerry+salamander — Gerrymander. The portmanteau stuck.
What’s the connection to the delimitation bills?
The proposed bills are not merely about operationalising women’s reservation, which has been in limbo for over 30 months. Instead, critics argue, they are a means to significantly alter India’s electoral map and grant the executive sweeping powers to decide when and how to do so.
Crucially, the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill seeks to redefine “population” as “population as ascertained at such census, as Parliament may by law determine” — allowing the executive to handpick a reference population, such as the 2011 Census, to alter the configuration of Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
Has this happened before in India?
Yes. The recent delimitation exercises in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam drew sharp criticism on grounds of communal gerrymandering, with opposition parties arguing that the representation of Muslim-majority areas in the legislature was reduced for partisan reasons. In Assam, for instance, Dhubri constituency is cited as an example of “packing” — concentrating Opposition-leaning voters into one seat — while Barpeta is cited as an example of “cracking”.
Also read: Is BJP electoral juggernaut deciding the shape of women’s quota, delimitation bills?
Are there global precedents?
The United States is the most documented case. Partisan redistricting there has repeatedly been challenged in court, with the Supreme Court ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering. Australia and the UK handle this better — Australia uses a two-tiered public consultation system before and after constituency mapping, while the UK allows public inquiries if objections arise. Both use independent commissions that result in fewer litigations and less partisan bias.
What do courts say about this in India?
In Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court emphasised that delimitation must not erode federalism or equality. And in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (2024), the court held that Article 329 does not absolutely bar judicial review of delimitation orders — leaving a door open for legal challenges to what the Opposition is calling a constitutionally dressed-up power grab.