With voting scheduled in a week’s time in opposition-ruled West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, opposition parties questioned the timing of the special session.

he Government introduced three Bills in a special session of the Lok Sabha convened on 16 April 2026:

(i) the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2026,

(ii) the Delimitation Bill 2026, and

(iii) the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The first two Bills aimed to increase the size of Lok Sabha to 850 (from the existing 543), sought to enable delimitation based on the 2011 census, and provided for reservation for women based on this delimitation. The Union Territories Laws Bill contained similar provisions for the Union Territories of Puducherry, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir.

With voting scheduled in a week’s time in opposition-ruled West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, opposition parties questioned the timing of the special session. The Government projected the Bills as having the main aim of empowerment of women, by granting them 33 per cent reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, but reservation for women had already been enshrined by the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act 2023. The 131st Amendment Bill merely lifted the pre-condition of increase in women’s seats being dependent on the ongoing census, instead making it dependent on the 2011 Census.

It also emerged that despite the Government’s avowed intention of empowering women, the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, or the Women’s Reservation Act of 2023, had not been notified till now; a notification was issued in the midst of the Parliamentary debate, on 16 April. The opposition rightly saw the 2026 Bill, as an attempt to amend a non-operational Act. The three Bills, taken together, carried forward the principle of Lok Sabha seats being allocated in proportion to population as determined by the 2011 census, removed the freeze on the number of MPs in the Lok Sabha, and also paved the way for constitution of a Delimitation Commission.

Determination of seats in the Lok Sabha, strictly on the basis of population was not acceptable to Opposition MPs from the South, because the population of southern States had grown much more slowly in comparison to northern States, and the South would have lost Lok Sabha seats, had population been made the sole criterion for determination of seats. The PM and Home Minister assured members that the Government proposed to increase representation of all States by a flat fifty per cent, thus preserving the inter-se proportion of seats for all States. However, this argument did not cut much ice with the Opposition, who preferred to rely on the printed word, rather than assurances.

After a long and contentious debate, the first Bill failed to garner the required two-third majority in either House, and the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, withdrew the other two. There is another school of thought which believes that the Bills were purposely brought in, with an intention to fail (Defeat by design? Why the govt pushed a bill it knew would fail, Vibha Sharma, The Statesman, 19 April 2026). According to Ms. Sharma: “The reality is that even a ‘doomed’ bill can serve purposes beyond becoming law ~ such as setting the agenda, shaping public discourse, drawing attention to key issues, and normalising policy ideas over time.”

This analysis appears correct; had the Government been honest in its intentions, then it would not have scheduled the special Parliamentary session in the midst of elections, when opposition parties could reasonably be expected take contrarian grandstanding views. Also, lacking numbers in both Houses, the ruling party could have sought consensus, by discussing provisions of the Bills with Opposition parties. The fact that PM Modi roundly castigated all opposition parties in his address to the nation on 18 April 2026 reinforces the conclusion that the three Bills were moved with a hidden agenda; should they make the cut and become law, the Government could portray itself as the champion of women and should the Bills fail, the Opposition could be painted as anti-women.

In both cases, women could be counted upon to vote, overwhelmingly, for the ruling party. Beyond what is already in the public discourse, two germane issues appear to have escaped general attention. Firstly, a fifty per cent increase in the number of MPs, followed by a fifty per cent increase in the number of MLAs, would put an unconscionable burden on the exchequer, what with the rising pay, perks, and lifelong pensions for parliamentarians. Sadly, not all our MPs are people of sterling character, according to a study by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 46 per cent of current Lok Sabha MPs have criminal cases registered against them, of whom 31 per cent face serious criminal charges like murder, kidnapping, or crimes against women.

Thus, proceeding on a negative note, more MPs could mean more such people in positions of power. Increase in the number of MPs could also mean that the daily chaos in Parliament would multiply manifold, and the Speaker would have an even tougher time to regulate proceedings. Surely, if the aim of the now defunct Bills was more debate and deliberation in Parliament, the Speaker, and more mature members, could counsel hon’ble MPs not to resort to walk outs and disruptions at the drop of a hat.

Also, Parliament could be in session for more days ~ not the 60 odd days in a year but 150 days, like its British counterpart. Significantly, none of the three Bills talked about increasing the number of MPs in the Rajya Sabha; the Bills, if passed, would have created a huge imbalance between the two Houses of Parliament; Lok Sabha with a strength of 850 would have totally dwarfed the 245-member Rajya Sabha. During joint sessions of Parliament, held in cases where a Bill is passed by one House but rejected by the other, the voice of the Rajya Sabha would have been reduced to a whisper ~ an undesirable outcome on all counts, because the Rajya Sabha is a representative of States and Union Territories, and has the Constitutional duty and power, to protect the rights of States against the Union Government.

The entire exercise could be seen as a fight for women’s votes: the Government has assiduously cultivated women for votes, be they slogans like Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao, or schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana that provided subsidised cooking gas to households, and schemes like Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and Mudra Yojana, which have benefited women peripherally. However, the reality is that, so far, reservation in political posts has not benefited women; the Constitutional provision for one-third reservation for women in local bodies ~ enhanced to fifty per cent by some State Governments ~ has given birth to the disgusting institution of Pradhan Patis, husbands who officiate for their Pradhan wives. On the other hand, the number of women in the Lok Sabha has progressively increased from 5 per cent to the current 14 per cent ~ without any reservation.

There have been women leaders like Indira Gandhi, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, and Sushma Swaraj as also the current crop of firebrand MPs, like Smriti Irani, Supriya Sule, and Mohua Moitra ~ all having been elected without the benefit of reservation. Contrary to intentions, reservation of seats for women may result in wives and daughters acting as proxies for their male relatives, creating God forbid, an institution of MP-Pati. One can safely say that the three Bills brought by the Government were doomed from the beginning, because they bundled the issues of women’s reservation and delimitation ~ no political party had any issue with the former, which cannot be said about the latter.

A more honest approach would have been to separate the two issues; women’s reservation would have sailed through, and delimitation could have been postponed to a more opportune time. Finally, one should not trust politicians blindly. As Erik Pevernagie, the Belgian painter and writer, had said: “Many politicians promise green, green grass by blending niceties with delusion and by using alluring confidence tricks. They voice attractive tales and tell things people like to hear. But the post-factual grassland often appears to be parched and barren.”