The Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Act, 1973 was passed to modify certain provisions related to the composition of the Lok Sabha and representa

31st Amendment of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is a living and evolving document. It was drafted in 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950. Since then, India has grown in population, added new states and union territories, and experienced massive political and social changes. 

To keep up with these transformations, Parliament has had to make constitutional amendments from time to time. These amendments ensure that the framework of governance continues to match the needs of the people.

One such amendment is the 31st Amendment of the Indian Constitution, enacted in 1973. It might not be as famous as the 42nd or the 44th Amendment, but it is extremely important because it reshaped the composition of the Lok Sabha and adjusted representation in State Assemblies. It ensured that India’s democracy remained fair and balanced as the country’s population grew rapidly.

In this detailed post, we’ll go through everything about the 31st Amendment — what it is, why it was needed, what changes it made, its impact, and why it still matters today. The goal is to make it simple, clear, and easy to remember — as if you’re having a conversation with a friend who loves Indian politics but hates legal jargon.

---

What Is the 31st Amendment of the Indian Constitution?

The Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Act, 1973 was passed to modify certain provisions related to the composition of the Lok Sabha and representation of states and Union Territories.

Before this amendment, the maximum strength of the Lok Sabha was 525 directly elected members representing the states, and 25 members representing the Union Territories.

The 31st Amendment increased this number to 545 directly elected members (525 + 20 additional seats). At the same time, it fixed the maximum number of Union Territory representatives at 20.

This change was introduced because India’s population had grown massively by the early 1970s. The last seat adjustment was based on the 1961 Census, and by the time of the 1971 Census, population growth had made the existing system outdated and unfair.

The amendment also brought Meghalaya into the scope of Article 332, which deals with reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of states.

So, in short, the 31st Amendment did three major things:

• Increased the number of Lok Sabha seats from 525 to 545.

• Fixed Union Territory representation at 20 seats.

• Included Meghalaya’s tribal areas under the reservation clause for Scheduled Tribes.

Highlights

Here’s a summary of what we’ve learned:

Passed in	1973
Called	Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Act, 1973
Main Aim	To increase Lok Sabha seats and adjust representation
Articles Changed	81, 330, 332
Lok Sabha Seats	525 → 545
Union Territory Seats	25 → 20
Meghalaya Added	Under Article 332 for ST representation
Type	Administrative / Non-controversial / Structural amendment
Effect	Fairer representation and inclusion of new states

---

Articles Affected by the 31st Amendment

To understand this amendment, let’s look at the specific Articles of the Constitution that were modified.

Article 81 – Composition of the Lok Sabha

Article 81 defines how the Lok Sabha (House of the People) is composed. It sets limits on how many representatives can be elected from the states and Union Territories.

Before the 31st Amendment:

• The maximum number of directly elected representatives from states was 525.

• The maximum number of Union Territory representatives was 25.

After the 31st Amendment:

• The total number of directly elected members from states was increased to 545.

• The number of Union Territory representatives was fixed at 20.

This ensured that states with large and growing populations got adequate representation in Parliament. It also brought balance by capping the number of UT seats.

---

Article 330 – Reservation of Seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Lok Sabha

Article 330 ensures that Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) have reserved seats in the Lok Sabha, in proportion to their population.

When the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha was increased, it was also necessary to make sure that the number of reserved seats increased in the same proportion. The 31st Amendment made small adjustments in Article 330 to ensure the reservation ratio remained fair even after adding new seats.

---

Article 332 – Reservation of Seats in the Legislative Assemblies of States

Article 332 provides for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State Legislative Assemblies.

Before the 31st Amendment, the clause excluded “the Scheduled Tribes in the tribal areas of Assam and in Nagaland.”

After the amendment, it was modified to read:

“…except the Scheduled Tribes in the tribal areas of Assam, in Nagaland and in Meghalaya.”

This meant that the tribal areas of Meghalaya were now formally included in the list of regions with special representation rights for Scheduled Tribes.

The amendment also said that this change would not affect the existing Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya until its dissolution, ensuring a smooth transition.

---

Why Was the 31st Amendment Needed?

Every constitutional amendment has a reason behind it — a problem it’s trying to fix. The 31st Amendment was mainly about keeping representation fair as India’s population changed rapidly.

Here are the major reasons why it was needed:

1. Rapid Population Growth

Between 1951 and 1971, India’s population had grown by nearly 50%. The number of people per MP was no longer uniform across the country.

For example, one MP from a big state like Uttar Pradesh might represent 20 lakh people, while another MP from a smaller state might represent just 5 lakh. This created an imbalance — violating the democratic principle that every citizen’s vote should have equal value.

The 31st Amendment helped correct this imbalance by increasing the number of Lok Sabha seats and adjusting representation according to the latest census.

---

2. Uneven Representation Among States

Because population growth wasn’t uniform across India, some states had outgrown their representation quota. If new seats weren’t added, large states would remain underrepresented compared to smaller states.

The amendment ensured that each state’s representation was based on its updated population numbers.

---

3. Overrepresentation of Union Territories

Before 1973, Union Territories (which are smaller and directly governed by the Centre) had a higher number of seats than justified by their population. To make this fair, the amendment reduced UT representation to 20 seats.

This gave more space to states, which had larger populations and deserved more representation.

---

4. Inclusion of Meghalaya’s Tribal Areas

When Meghalaya became a full-fledged state in 1972, its tribal areas needed to be constitutionally recognized for political reservation, similar to Assam and Nagaland.

The 31st Amendment fixed this oversight, extending the same special treatment to Meghalaya’s tribal communities. This was an important step for equality and inclusion in the North-East.

---

5. Census-Based Adjustment

India conducts a national census every 10 years. After the 1971 Census, it became clear that representation needed to be updated. The amendment aligned the Constitution with the new demographic data.

---

What Exactly Changed

In short, the amendment brought the following major updates:

• Increased the number of Lok Sabha seats from 525 to 545.

• Reduced the maximum number of Union Territory seats from 25 to 20.

• Modified Article 332 to include Meghalaya in the tribal areas clause.

• Ensured fair reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in line with the new total number of seats.

• Maintained transitional safeguards so that Meghalaya’s current assembly wasn’t disrupted.

---

The Broader Impact of the 31st Amendment

The 31st Amendment might seem technical, but its impact on India’s democracy was huge. It affected the size of Parliament, state politics, and even the balance of power among regions.

Let’s look at the key effects in detail.

Adding 20 new seats meant more Members of Parliament and better representation for citizens. Each MP now represented a smaller number of people, making the system more democratic and efficient.

In a country as large and diverse as India, this was crucial. More MPs meant more voices, more perspectives, and better regional balance.

When seats are increased, the distribution among states changes. States with higher population growth gained more seats, giving them greater political influence in the Lok Sabha.

For example:

• States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra benefited because of their large populations.

• Smaller states and Union Territories maintained representation but within a capped limit.

This redistribution made the Lok Sabha more aligned with India’s population reality.

By balancing state and UT representation, the amendment strengthened India’s federal structure. States became more equally represented in the central legislature, which is important in a union of diverse regions.

For Meghalaya, the amendment had special significance. By including its tribal areas under Article 332, it ensured that the state’s indigenous communities had a guaranteed voice in the legislative process.

This was a progressive move towards social justice and equality for North-Eastern tribal populations.

The amendment led to a major delimitation exercise — redrawing of constituency boundaries to match the new seat distribution.

Delimitation always comes with challenges:

• Political debates over boundary changes.

• Adjustments to electoral rolls.

• Possible confusion among voters and candidates.

Still, it was necessary to maintain fair representation.

---

Criticisms of the 31st Amendment

Although the amendment was generally well-received, some criticisms were raised — mostly from political analysts and legal experts.

Critics argued that representation should not depend only on population size. Factors like geographical area, social diversity, and economic development should also be considered.

Large but sparsely populated areas (like Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh) might end up with very few seats, even though they have unique governance needs.

By capping UT seats at 20, some Union Territories lost representation. Critics said this could make smaller territories feel neglected or less represented in national decision-making.

Every time constituency boundaries are redrawn, there’s a risk of gerrymandering — manipulating boundaries to favor certain political parties. While India has independent delimitation commissions, the possibility of political influence can never be ruled out completely.

Some felt that simply adding more MPs doesn’t guarantee better governance. What matters is the quality of debate and accountability, not just quantity.

A larger Lok Sabha can sometimes become harder to manage, making parliamentary discussions longer and less focused.

---

Historical Context of the 31st Amendment

To understand why this amendment was passed in 1973, we need to look at what was happening in India at that time.

• Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister.

• India had just emerged victorious in the 1971 war with Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh.

• The population had crossed the 550 million mark.

• Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura had recently been granted full statehood.

• The 1971 Census revealed massive population growth, making earlier seat allocations outdated.

It was a period of administrative and political reform. India was reorganizing itself to become more efficient and representative. The 31st Amendment fit perfectly into that broader context of modernization and expansion.

---

Legal and Constitutional Stability

Unlike some other amendments, the 31st Amendment did not create any legal controversy. It was passed smoothly and implemented without opposition or litigation.

No fundamental rights were affected. No power shift occurred between the Centre and the States. It was purely an administrative and representational correction — technical but essential.

This makes it one of the few amendments that achieved its goal peacefully and efficiently, without causing political drama.

---

Strengths of the 31st Amendment

Let’s highlight what made this amendment successful and important.

• Responsive: It addressed real demographic changes based on the 1971 Census.

• Inclusive: It protected the rights of tribal communities in Meghalaya.

• Balanced: It maintained fair representation between states and UTs.

• Stable: It provided a smooth transition clause for Meghalaya.

• Uncontroversial: It was accepted across political parties without much conflict.

In other words, the 31st Amendment was a quiet yet powerful act of constitutional housekeeping — the kind of amendment that keeps democracy functional without fanfare.

---

Real-Life Example to Understand the Amendment

Imagine two states — State A and State B.

In 1961, both had equal population and equal representation in Lok Sabha (say, 20 MPs each). But by 1971, State A’s population doubled, while State B’s population barely grew.

If Parliament didn’t adjust seats, citizens of State A would be underrepresented. One MP in State A might represent 15 lakh people, while one MP in State B represents just 7 lakh. That’s unfair.

The 31st Amendment fixed this imbalance by giving State A more MPs in proportion to its population, and adjusting the total Lok Sabha strength accordingly.

That’s how India’s democracy stays fair — by ensuring every citizen’s voice carries equal weight.

---

The Idea of a “Living Constitution”

The 31st Amendment perfectly shows how flexible and alive our Constitution is.

When the framers drafted it in 1949, they knew India would change rapidly. So they gave future generations the power to modify it as needed.

By expanding the Lok Sabha, adjusting reservations, and updating representation, the 31st Amendment proved that the Constitution isn’t rigid — it’s adaptable to India’s growth.

---

Comparison with Other Amendments

To understand where it stands in the bigger picture, here’s how the 31st Amendment compares with some major ones.

• 24th Amendment (1971): Gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

• 25th Amendment (1971): Restricted the right to property to implement socialist reforms.

• 31st Amendment (1973): Increased Lok Sabha seats and adjusted representation.

• 42nd Amendment (1976): Known as the “Mini Constitution,” it made sweeping changes, giving more power to the executive.

• 44th Amendment (1978): Restored democratic values after the Emergency.

From this, it’s clear that the 31st Amendment wasn’t ideological or controversial — it was practical and administrative. It quietly helped democracy function better.

---

Legacy and Continuing Relevance

Even today, the structure of the Lok Sabha — 545 seats — comes from the 31st Amendment.

After that, seat redistribution was frozen until after the 2026 Census to avoid penalizing states that successfully controlled population growth.

So, the 31st Amendment’s framework still forms the backbone of our parliamentary composition.

It reminds us that democracy isn’t static — it must evolve with people, regions, and generations.

---

Conclusion

The 31st Amendment of the Indian Constitution might not make newspaper headlines today, but its importance cannot be overstated. It was a quiet revolution in representation — one that expanded India’s Parliament, balanced state and UT power, and gave tribal communities a stronger voice.

It shows how the Constitution adapts to the changing realities of India. While some amendments shake up the political system, others — like the 31st — simply ensure that the machinery of democracy keeps running smoothly.

By updating the number of Lok Sabha seats and including new regions under constitutional protection, the amendment kept India’s democratic foundation strong, fair, and future-ready.

In short, the 31st Amendment was a practical act of democratic maintenance — proof that India’s Constitution can grow with its people, without losing its soul.