Kolkata’s proposed ward delimitation has come under renewed scrutiny after the Kolkata district CPM asked the municipal commissioner to reconsider the plan, alleging that the proposed boundaries rely excessively on electoral rolls and create large differences in voter numbers between wards.
In a letter dated September 28, Kolkata district CPM secretary Kallol Majumdar raised objections to several aspects of the proposed delimitation. The party said ward boundaries should reflect population, geographical location, administrative convenience and other relevant information, rather than the vote share or electoral strength of political parties in previous elections.
The CPM argued that using voter lists as the principal basis for reorganising wards would not accurately represent the city’s actual population distribution. It also claimed that the proposed wards show substantial differences in the number of voters, without any clear publicly stated standard explaining the variation.
The letter cited four proposed wards as examples. Proposed wards 57, 39, 37 and 36 were said to have approximately 5,655, 6,119, 7,076 and 7,490 voters respectively. In contrast, proposed wards 121, 45 and 66 were cited as having approximately 23,059, 24,048 and 28,695 voters.
The figures, as presented in the CPM’s letter, indicate a wide gap between the smallest and largest voter counts cited by the party. The CPM has sought an examination of the proposed boundaries and the criteria used to create them. The report does not include the municipal commissioner’s response to the allegations or an official explanation of the methodology behind the draft delimitation.
The party has also alleged political bias in the proposed boundary changes. According to the letter, some areas where the Bharatiya Janata Party received a comparatively higher vote share in the previous election were assigned smaller wards, while areas where other political parties recorded comparatively lower vote shares were combined into wards with larger electorates. These allegations remain claims made by the CPM and have not been independently established in the supplied report.
At the centre of the dispute is the institutional question of how municipal representation should be recalibrated in a city where population, voter enrolment and neighbourhood boundaries do not always align. A voter roll records eligible electors, while population-based planning also includes residents who are not eligible to vote. The CPM’s objection is that treating the electoral roll as the dominant measure could leave the proposed wards unequal in demographic terms.
The party has referred to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act while arguing that population, geographical considerations and administrative convenience should guide the exercise. It has also maintained that the previous electoral performance of any political party cannot be used as a basis for fixing ward boundaries.
The municipal commissioner is now the authority to whom the objections have been submitted. The next publicly relevant step will be any response from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and any clarification of the data, criteria and administrative process used for the proposed delimitation.
