Parliament is currently debating a legislative package comprising three Bills — the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, the Union Territories Laws Amendment Bill, and the Delimitation Bill — which, if passed in their present form, will have cumulative implications extending beyond the stated objective of implementing women’s reservation. The package was introduced following a debate in the Lok Sabha, and the Opposition sought a division of votes at the stage of introduction. The Constitution Amendment Bill was ultimately introduced with 251 members supporting it and 185 voting against. While this reflects a simple majority at the stage of introduction, the Bill would ultimately require a special majority for its passage.
The objective of reserving seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies is undoubtedly significant and commands broad consensus. However, the legislative package goes further. It proposes to increase the size of the Lok Sabha, enable a nationwide delimitation exercise based on the last published Census — or any Census that Parliament may determine — remove the constitutional requirement that delimitation must follow each Census, and most importantly, alter the basis on which seats are allocated among states.
The constitutional scheme, as reflected in Articles 81 and 82, proceeds on the principle that representation of states in the Lok Sabha is to be broadly proportionate to population. At the same time, this principle was qualified by a freeze introduced in 1976, which anchored the allocation of seats to the 1971 Census. This arrangement, subsequently extended until the first Census after 2026, ensured that states with lower population growth were not disadvantaged through a reduction in their relative share of representation. While this was a departure from a strictly population-based model, it formed part of a considered constitutional compromise.
The Bills tabled depart from this framework. The freeze reflected in the provisos to these provisions is proposed to be removed. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution Amendment Bill notes that “while the freeze of seats on the basis of population figures of the year 1971 served an important policy purpose, the country’s demographic profile has since undergone substantial changes”. Further, Section 4 of the Delimitation Bill requires the Commission to readjust seats among states on the basis of the latest published Census. Taken together, these provisions point towards a return to population-based allocation as the governing principle.
The government has repeatedly assured the southern states, in particular, that the existing proportion of seats will be maintained. The Prime Minister reiterated this assurance on the floor of the Lok Sabha yesterday. However, these assurances are not reflected in the text of the Bills and, until they are, do not carry any legal effect. If the Bills are passed in their present form, population-based allocation will become the governing principle, and the Delimitation Commission, once constituted, will be bound by the statutory and constitutional framework within which it operates. It cannot act on the basis of executive statements or parliamentary assurances that do not find expression in law.
If the intention is to preserve the existing distribution of seats among states, this must be expressly incorporated into the constitutional or statutory scheme. There are two ways in which this may be done.
First, the government may introduce an amendment to the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, on the floor of the House, by inserting a proviso to Articles 81 and 82 stipulating that, while undertaking the readjustment of seats among states, the existing proportion of seats as on the date of this Bill shall be maintained.
Alternatively, this principle may be incorporated through a schedule to the Constitution specifying the allocation of seats for each state, similar to the existing scheme for the Rajya Sabha. Such a provision would ensure that while constituencies within states are redrawn on the basis of updated population data, the inter-state distribution of seats in the Lok Sabha remains unchanged.
Second, the government may introduce a corresponding amendment to the Delimitation Bill incorporating a similar limitation — either through a proviso or a schedule — mandating that the existing ratio of seats among States be preserved during the process of readjustment.
The more appropriate course, however, would be to embed this principle within the Constitution itself through an amendment to the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill. Doing so would afford it an additional layer of protection, ensuring that it may only be modified through a constitutional amendment requiring a special majority and ratification by the states. By contrast, if the issue is addressed solely through a change in the Delimitation Bill, it would remain open to modification by a simple parliamentary majority. Given that the representation of states is a core federal concern, the former approach is also more appropriate, as it involves states more directly in the process of change.
Adopting modifications during the course of legislative debate is consistent with settled parliamentary practice. Constitutional amendment bills are considered clause by clause, with each provision being put to vote separately and required to secure a special majority. This design allows members to move and adopt amendments to specific clauses during debate.
As recognised in parliamentary procedure, such clause-wise voting ensures that members’ positions on distinct provisions are accurately reflected. In practice, this has enabled substantive modifications to be incorporated at the floor stage. This is illustrated by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1978, introduced to undo the legislative changes incorporated during the Emergency, where the text underwent significant modification during parliamentary consideration before its final passage.
Constitutional clarity on the allocation of seats among states is imperative. If the existing balance among states is to be preserved, that choice must be reflected in the law itself, as it is the enacted text alone that will bind the Delimitation Commission in its task of allocating seats.
The writer leads Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal
