That the so-called Women’s Reservation Bill was bound to fail was evident from the outset. Introduced in the Lok Sabha as the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026 (the Bill), it could have been passed only had the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) mustered the support of two-thirds of the Lok Sabha. Even the Enforcement Directorate could not come to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) aid. A party that has mastered the arithmetic of power, a government so deeply steeped in manipulating outcomes, must have known that the numbers required for passing the Bill were stacked against it. The reason behind its introduction, that too at a special session held between April 16 and 18, 2026 stares us in the face.
The BJP knew that it had very little chance of establishing a meaningful foothold in the Assembly elections in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. It was, however, confident that Himanta Biswa Sarma in Assam, with the toxic nature of his politics, may well be re-elected. Therefore, the real target was to weaken the juggernaut of Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal. The special session was convened knowing full well that the first phase of the elections in West Bengal was to be held on April 23 and the second on April 29. Any date prior to polling in the first phase would, in a sense, disrupt the Trinamool Congress's (TMC) campaign rhythm, since the Opposition could not risk TMC members being absent in the Lok Sabha when the Bill was debated and voted upon. The NDA, with 293 Lok Sabha members, could secure only 298 votes, including 4 from the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party.
The defeat enabled the BJP to blame the Congress and the entire Opposition, as the Prime Minister did in his address to the nation, for depriving women of the 33 percent reservation of seats in the 2029 Lok Sabha elections. The total strength of the lower House of Parliament, as envisaged in the Bill, was 850 seats. The difference between the existing 543 and the proposed 850 seats accounted for 33 percent of the Lok Sabha's strength. The BJP thought it would be a potent campaign slogan to blame Mamata and the entire Opposition for stalling the Bill and for being anti-women. But this was not the only reason why the Bill was introduced.
Had the BJP succeeded in passing the Bill by somehow mustering a two-thirds majority in the House, the consequences would have helped it remain in power for many years to come. As the Bill proposed 850 as the total strength of the Lok Sabha in 2029, it would have required the re-adjustment of the boundaries of all parliamentary constituencies in each state based on population. Such an adjustment would require a delimitation exercise. For that reason, a separate Delimitation Bill was introduced. The delimitation process, as we saw in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam, has now become highly politically biased, with the chairperson of the Delimitation Commission ensuring that constituency boundaries are re-adjusted to favour the BJP. The original 128th Constitution Amendment Bill, which was passed unanimously, required a population census to be conducted after 2026 and, thereafter, a delimitation exercise reserving 33 percent of the seats for women in the newly constituted Lok Sabha.
We are all aware that the population growth has been much faster in the Hindi heartland than in the southern states. With the extent of population, based on a census to be held after 2026 becoming the basis for determining the increase in the strength of each Assembly, any future Lok Sabha elections would have tilted the scale in favour of the BJP for years to come. This will inevitably violate the principle of federalism by giving much greater weightage to the states in the North, as representation in Parliament is based on adult franchise. Such an outcome will never be acceptable to southern states. The BJP, therefore, cleverly decided not to implement the 128th Constitution Amendment Bill, which had been unanimously passed, by introducing a new Bill that stands defeated. Had the new Bill passed, it would have discarded the 1971 census, on which subsequent Lok Sabha elections were held as well as the 2001 census, on which the number of seats in the Assemblies was fixed. We would then have been left with only the 2011 census.
The delimitation based on the 2011 census would have allowed a proportional increase of 50 percent in each state, based on the number of seats already in place. For example, in the state of Tamil Nadu, a 50 percent increase would have resulted in the number of seats going up from 39 to 59 pursuant to a delimitation exercise, while in Uttar Pradesh, they would have increased from 80 to 120. The gap in the number of seats between Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh would have increased from 41 to 61. The same pattern of increase in seats in the Hindi heartland would have negatively impacted the southern states.
The reason for this hurried exercise by the BJP was to secure a stranglehold over election outcomes, because its success rate in the Hindi heartland is much higher than in key southern states. This permanent political advantage to the BJP would have been the bane of the Opposition, placing it at a lasting disadvantage.
The result of this defeat is that, in terms of the 106th Constitution Amendment Act, 2023, a census is required to be held after 2026. However, my hunch is that the BJP would still attempt a delimitation exercise based on the 2011 census before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections to manipulate yet another outcome. This will give rise to another constitutional issue.
In the meantime, the BJP is sitting pretty with over 2,400 companies of the Central Armed Police Force in West Bengal. The entire machinery of the Union government in collaboration with the Election Commission is working against the state.
The stage is set for many battles to be fought to save what is left of Indian democracy.
Kapil Sibal | Senior lawyer and member of Rajya Sabha
(Views are personal)
(Tweets @KapilSibal)