Bill of contention: Failure highlights lack of consensus-building

Women's quota Bill defeat exposes political mistrust and flaws in linking reservation to delimitation, raising questions over consensus and timing

The defeat of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha, a first for the National Democratic Alliance in 12 years, underlined the deep trust deficit between the ruling and Opposition parties. The Bill, which intended to advance the reservation of one-third of the seats for women in an expanded Lok Sabha and state Assemblies with the delimitation of constituencies, saw unprecedented Opposition unity. It secured only 298 “ayes” against the 352 (two-thirds majority) required. Hurriedly introduced through a special session, the Bill appeared to be politically motivated to fast-track the women’s quota ahead of the 2029 general elections and present the ruling regime with an opportunity to control the electoral narrative. By linking the legislation to delimitation, however, the government misjudged the political mood, a reflection of the lack of communication and patient consensus-building that traditionally precedes a constitutional amendment. Calls for an all-party meeting and a detailed briefing only after the current Assembly elections were reportedly ignored. The fact that southern states have frequently voiced their dissatisfaction over the lack of benefit from their superior human development indicators — such as when terms of reference for the Finance Commission are set — should have given cause to pause, especially when the ruling party lacked the numbers in Parliament. 

In 2023, the 106th constitutional amendment, which provided for the reservation of seats for women, was passed with near unanimity by both Houses of Parliament. The Act, however, allowed for reservation only after the delimitation exercise following the first Census after the Act came into force. The reference date for the current Census is March 2027, making it unlikely that delimitation would be completed by the time of the Lok Sabha elections of 2029. So the 131st amendment sought to lift the freeze on parliamentary boundaries until after the 2026 Census, a restriction that had been in place through a 2001 constitutional amendment, by enabling delimitation based on the 2011 Census. 

While the principle of each state having seats in proportion to its population is unexceptionable, a granular look at the legislation suggests that the process was flawed. For instance, Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution provide that delimitation will be undertaken after every Census and based on the latest Census. The latest Bill provided for Parliament to decide on the delimitation timetable and which Census to use, and these decisions would be made by a simple majority, which the current government enjoys. This became problematic because the latest Bill allowed for the next delimitation to be based on the 2011 Census. Based on the current strength, the southern seats would have lost both in terms of the number and share of seats, while Uttar Pradesh and Bihar gained. Lost in the turbulent political atmosphere inside Sansad Bhavan was the government’s subsequent offer — not in the original draft — to increase the number of seats in the Lok Sabha by 50 per cent, from 543 to 850, which would mean the proportion of seats for states would not change. 

While leaders of the ruling party and Opposition trade charges over commitment to — or lack thereof — gender equality, the fact is that women’s reservation is only a means to an end. Other empowering measures, including the hard work of ensuring equal opportunity in education, health, and jobs would go a long way towards ensuring that Indian women truly earn their parliamentary laurels rather than relying on affirmative action to get there.