The Madras High Court recently said that it was unreasonable and unfair that the political representation of Tamil Nadu in the Lok Sabha was reduced in 1967 after the State managed to bring down its population through successful family planning measures. .The order was passed by Justices N Kirubakaran and B Pugalendhi on August 17, days before Justice Kirubakaran retired from service on Thursday. .“Can successful implementation of family planning programmes of the Central Government be put against the people of the State by taking away political representations in the Parliament," the Court asked..It recounted that Tamil Nadu had 41 representatives in the Lok Sabha until 1962. However, following a delimitation exercise, the number of Tamil Nadu constituencies for Lok Sabha was reduced by two seats to 39, owing to a reduction in population. ."Since population has been brought down by successfully implementing national programme for family planning, the political representations in the Parliament have been reduced from 41 to 39, which is very unfair and unreasonable. Normally, a State Government has to be honoured and complimented for successfully implementing Central Government's policies and projects etc., and interests of such State cannot be adversely affected," the Court said. .The Court noted that population control is a must to prevent acute shortage of natural resources and public amenities, adding that the Indian population is around 138 crores presently, second only to China. .The Bench went on to emphasise that every vote matters, referring to the 1999 no confidence motion moved against the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-headed NDA government. "Every body was looking at digital board. It showed 269 Yes and 270 No. Speaker GMC Balayogi announced that confidence motion was defeated by one vote. Such was the importance of one vote in making or defeating a mighty Central Government in the largest democracy of the world ... When one Member of Parliament vote itself was capable of toppling a Government, it is very shocking that Tamil Nadu lost 2 Members of Parliament because of successful implementation of birth control in the State," the Court observed. .The Bench went on to propose the following:(i) That the State of Tamil Nadu should be compensated for the loss of political representation in the Lok Sabha over the past 14 elections since 1967. In this regard, the Court opined that the notional loss should be calculated as at least Rs. 200 crores per candidate. The compensation for the past 14 elections (two candidates per election) would come to Rs 5,600 crores, the Court estimated; or(ii) States that lose political representation in the Lok Sabha due to effective population control (including Tamil Nadu) should be given more representation in the Rajya Sabha. .In other words, the Bench opined that, "When existing political representatives were reduced based on population count, for no fault of the State, the State should be compensated either by way of compensation or by way of additional representation in Rajya Sabha.".This way, the Union Government could do justice to States that successfully implement birth control programmes as per the policy of the Central government, the Court said. .The Court went on to opine that the number of Lok Sabha seats for the State should remain frozen, regardless of delimitation exercises."Population control cannot be a factor to decide the number of political representatives of the States in the Parliament. Those States which failed to implement the birth control programmes were benefited with more political representatives in the Parliament whereas States, especially, southern States, namely Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, which successfully implemented the birth control programmes stood to lose 2 seats in each Parliament ... States have been reorganised on linguistic basis as per the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. India is a multi religious, multi racial and multi linguistic country. Therefore, the powers should be distributed equally and there should be a balance of powers", the Court said..The Court reasoned that even if democracy is supposed to be on one-person one-vote basis, if that is followed on this issue, States that cannot control their population would have more representation in the Parliament."States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh would get more seats, whereas the southern States, which are able to control the population growth would get lesser number of Parliamentary constituencies, thereby lowering the political power of the States," the Court's order stated..These observations were made while rejecting a plea to de-reserve the Tenkasi Parliamentary constituency, which is presently reserved only for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. .The Court observed that the constituency would remain reserved till the next delimitation exercise which is due to be carried out in 2026. Presently, Tenkasi is stated to have the highest SC population (21.5%), the Court noted. The Bench also echoed observations made in another similar case that the reservation of constituencies should continue until SC candidates have prospects of winning from general or unreserved constituencies as well. ."It is a disgusting fact that Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates are mostly not successful if they are fielded as candidates in the general constituency. Though the political parties do lip service claiming themselves as the guardians of Scheduled Caste (SC), they lack moral courage to put up Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates in the general constituency. Unless in the general constituencies Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates are put up as candidates of political parties and win the election, reservation of constituencies for Scheduled Castes (SC) should continue," the Court remarked. .Reservation of constituencies should continue till Scheduled Caste candidates are fielded and win in general constituencies: Madras High Court.The Bench reiterated that ideally reservation of constituencies should be on a rotational basis so that one constituency is not kept reserved for years together. .While the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected, the Court proceeded to suo motu implead ten political parties in Tamil Nadu, including the ruling DMK, the main opposition AIADMK and others, before posing the following eight queries to be answered by the next hearing:1. Could the rights of State of Tamil Nadu and other similarly placed States could be violated by reduction in number of Members of Parliament who could be elected from the State for successfully implementing birth control programmes thereby reducing the population of the State?2. Could the States, which could not successfully implement population control programmes, be benefited with more political representatives in the Parliament?3. Why not the Court prohibit the respondent authorities from further reducing the number of Parliamentary seats from Tamil Nadu based on future census as per population since the growth of population has been contained?4. Why not the respondent authorities pay a sum of Rs. 200 crores (notional value of the services made by a Member of Parliament) to the State (where there is reduction in Lok Sabha representation due to decline in population)?5. Why not the Central Government pay a sum of Rs. 5,600 crores to Tamil Nadu as it lost 28 representatives from 1962 onwards in the past 14 Lok Sabha elections?6. Why not the respondent authorities restore 41 Member of Parliament seats to Tamil Nadu, as was there till the 1962 general elections?7. Why not the Central Government come forward with a proposal that those States which effectively control the population in their respective States would be given equal number of seats in Rajya Sabha in lien of reduction in number of Lok Sabha seats?8. Why not Article 81 of the Constitution be amended to maintain the same number of parliamentary constituencies irrespective of change in the population of respective States ?.The matter has been listed for further consideration in four weeks.