The Union government is planning to convene a "special session" of Parliament to secure the passage of a Constitution amendment bill linked to the implementation of women's reservation, with sources expressing confidence that it would win by a margin of 15 to 18 votes.
The sources said the government was confident of securing the required numbers but did not disclose the dates or duration of the proposed session.
The government needs 361 votes to secure a two-thirds majority for the passage of the Constitution amendment bill. The Lok Sabha, with a sanctioned strength of 543 members, currently has three vacancies.
The proposed amendment seeks to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha from the present 543 seats to a maximum of 850 through delimitation, paving the way for the implementation of 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and state legislative assemblies.
The move comes after a similar Constitution amendment bill failed to secure the required numbers in the Lok Sabha during a special sitting of the Budget Session on April 17.
The possibility of convening Parliament at short notice remains open as the Monsoon Session, during which both Houses were adjourned sine die (indefinitely) on August 13, has not yet been prorogued. The session has remained unprorogued for 91 days, breaking the previous record of 87 days set in 2008.
An extended sitting within the existing session requires a minimum notice of two days, while convening a fresh session requires at least 14 days' notice.
The government's decision to keep the Monsoon Session unprorogued had fuelled speculation about an extended or special sitting to consider the proposed amendment. The government proposes to increase Lok Sabha seats in all states by 50 per cent to address concerns raised by southern states as it seeks to implement the women's reservation law before the 2029 parliamentary elections.
Building on the earlier bill, the fresh draft is learnt to propose keeping the existing inter-state seat ratios intact based on the 1971 Census.
However, this is one of the formulations the government is considering, and no final decision has been taken, government sources have said.
The Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeframe for proroguing a House after it has been adjourned sine die. Nor does the continuation of a session without formal prorogation for an extended period, by itself, constitute any constitutional or procedural impropriety.
(With inputs from PTI)
