Kalpana Bora
(kalpana.bora@gmail.com)
On April 17, 2026, the Con- stitution (131st Amend-ment) Bill to increase the number of seats in the Lok Sabha from 543 to 850 (815 from States and 35 from Union Territories) and provide 33% reservation to women in legislative bodies (based on the last published census data, i.e., of 2011) was defeated in the Lok Sabha. This happened because the opposition political parties did not support it. Being an amendment to the Constitution, it needed a two-thirds majority of the members present in the Lok Sabha for the bill to be passed. After its defeat, the two interlinked bills could not be tabled.
Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2026
Three bills have been introduced in Lok Sabha on April 16, 2026: (i) the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2026, (ii) the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill 2026, and (iii) the Delimitation Bill 2026. These bills proposed to increase the number of seats of Lok Sabha by enabling delimitation based on the 2011 census and then implement 33% reservation for women to be based on this delimitation, which could have become applicable in elections of 2029. It should be noted that Article 334A, introduced by the 106th Constitutional (Amendment) Act in 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), introduced “Reservation of one-third of seats for women in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.” But this reservation was to be based on the first census after the commencement of the 2023 Act.” Considering that the next Lok Sabha elections will be held in 2029, it is unlikely that a delimitation exercise based on the proposed 2027 census will be completed before the 2029 elections (as the process of delimitation can take two-three years). This would imply that reservation for women could not be applied to the 2029 Lok Sabha election (prsindia.org). And hence, the government had proposed the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, to increase the size of the Lok Sabha based on the census of 2011 (bypassing the condition of the post-2026 census requirement) and implement women’s reservation, expediting implementation of 33% seats reservation for women in legislature bodies, from 2034 to 2029.
Connection between Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill & 33% Reservation for Women
Now, let’s try to understand how these two are connected with each other. As the above discussion shows, expansion and redistribution of seats is necessary to correct the imbalance between the number of voters and elected representatives. Since the womenfolk are now about 70 crore, they need a fair representation in legislature, not only to ensure gender equality in politics but also to enable them to contribute respectfully to the story of growth and development of the country. Bharat is now marching ahead to become a Viksit nation by 2047, so how can that happen without the contribution of 48% of the population?
Thus, reserving 33% of the number of seats of the legislature for women would be more fruitful if delimitation is done first, which is needed due to an increase in population (thereby increasing the number of seats). In that case, the number of seats reserved for women would have been 33% of 850 = 280, leaving 570 seats for men without reducing the number of seats for men from the current number of seats. This reduces the possibility of gender-based political fiction, giving advantage to women at the earliest, and would also avoid division of society on the basis of gender.
If women’s reservation is done without delimitation, then the number of seats reserved for women would be 180 (33% of 543), leaving only 363 seats for men. Will that be acceptable to men? Which men would like to lose their seat to a female MP? This could lead to unnecessary gender-based unrest and division in the society, a society that has already been suffering from so many divisions created by the British and then conveniently being carried over by some people.
Due to the above arguments, the government’s move to first increase the number of seats in legislature bodies based on the latest published census of 2011 before implementing women’s reservation quotas is justified.
Delimitation Bill 2026
Delimitation has been ensured in Articles 81, 82, and 170 of the Constitution of India, which provide for redrawing boundaries of constituencies in tune with changes in population. In 1973, the 31st Constitutional Amendment Act increased the seats of the Lok Sabha from 525 to 545, based on the census of 1971. In 1976, during Indira Gandhi’s government’s Emergency, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution had frozen seat reallocation, and this freeze was to expire in 2001. Then in 2002, the 84th Amendment extended it to “the first Census after 2026.” The last nationwide delimitation was ordered in 2002 and completed in 2008, which redrew boundaries of constituencies, but the number of Lok Sabha seats was not increased (it was kept frozen to the census data of 1971). Thus, the number of Lok Sabha seats has not increased since 1973, and this increase was postponed to 2026 (more than 52 years). Half a century is a long period indeed in the journey of a nation. This freezing was to be removed in the current bill, using the census data of 2011.
It is very simple to understand that when the density of population increases in a given constituency, it becomes difficult for the sitting MP/MLA (representative) to take care of the people, address their problems, and work efficiently for the growth and development of the area. It’s like in a classroom, if there are 30 students, it is easier for the teacher to teach students as she can pay more attention to each student individually. However, when the number of students in the same classroom becomes, say, 45, the teaching would no longer remain as effective as it was earlier. The teacher cannot pay desired attention to each student individually. The rest of the 15 students need to be relocated to a new section of the class. Likewise, when the number of patients visiting a hospital increases, we need to establish more hospitals to cater to the needs of the patients. Exactly in the similar fashion, when the population of a constituency increases, we need to redefine the geographic boundaries of electoral constituencies and need to increase the number of constituencies accordingly. That’s what is done exactly in the delimitation process, to ensure effective governance with an increase in population.
Let’s have a look at the census data from 1971 onwards (as per censusindia.gov.in): 1971: total population 548,159,652, population density 177 persons/per sq. km; 1981: total population 683,329,097, population density 216 persons/per sq. km; 1991: total population 846,421,039, population density 274 persons/per sq. km; 2001: total population 1,028,737,436, population density 324 persons/per sq. km; 2011: total population 1,210,854,977, population density 328 persons/per sq. km.
As no census has been done after 2011, the projected population in 2021 is about 136 crore (population density 430 persons/per sq. km); the projected population in 2026 is about 147 crore (population density 460 persons/per sq. km).
From the above data, it is clear that the population density of the country has increased by about 2.5 times since 1971, while the population has become about 2.7 times that of 1971. And this justifies the need for increasing the number of seats in legislative bodies. Since this was to be applied uniformly all over the country, no particular state should have feared losing the number of seats and hence their representation, as has been wrongly propagated by some people with vested interests.
Some people are also calling the Constitution (131st Amendment) bill a threat to democracy. Who is telling this? They, whose predecessors imposed the state of emergency in the nation in 1975 for about 21 months and violated all fundamental rights of people. Was democracy not threatened then? When forced religious conversions were being done in Kerala and Northeast Bharat, was democracy not threatened then? When genocide of Hindus in Kashmir and Bengal, migrations of Hindus from these areas, and purposeful and systematic immigration of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh to enter Bharat and encroach on our land, resources, and Sanskriti were being done, was democracy not threatened then?
Injustice with women’s power of the nation
Women have always been playing a prominent and leading role in all the spheres of life in Bharat since ancient times—be it family affairs, decision-making, management, social, political, economic, or dharmik affairs. Bharatiya Itihaas is filled with innumerable stories of strong, courageous, bold Nari shakti—queens, freedom fighters, scientists, academicians, and political leaders like Mata Aditi, Shakuntala, Mata Sita, Mata Kutni, Mata Jijabai, Maharani Jawanta Bai, Rani Laxmi Bai, Queen of Kittur Chennamma, Rani Abbakka, Rani Gaidinliu, Kanaklata Barua, Ahilyabai Hoker, Rani Velu Nachiyar, Sarojini Naidu, Sucheta Kriplani, and Sarala Birla (businesswoman & educationist), to name just some.
With this legacy of contributions of women in the making of Bharat, why did some people obstruct the way in giving respect and rights to women they deserve, at the earliest? Why this injustice with women?
Why wait till 2034, when it could have been done in 2029 itself? This is the question every woman is asking today to those who opposed it on April 17, 2026.