By P.K. Balachandran/The Daily Times of Bangladesh
Colombo, April 18 — In a significant setback, the Modi government’s attempt to bundle the controversial proposal to expand the Lok Sabha with the broadly supported issue of women’s reservation fell short of the required two-thirds majority on Friday.
The bill received 298 votes in favour and 230 against, denying it the special majority needed for passage.
The government had hoped to fast-track both measures by combining them, but the opposition strongly objected, arguing that the women’s reservation bill had already been passed in 2023 and merely required implementation. There was no justification for linking it to the far more contentious issue of increasing parliamentary seats through delimitation.
Strong Opposition from Southern States and West Bengal
The bill faced fierce resistance, particularly from MPs representing
South Indian states and West Bengal. Critics argued that redistributing seats based on population would disproportionately benefit northern states with higher population growth, while penalising southern states that have successfully controlled their populations through better economic, social, and educational policies.
Projections indicate sharp increases in northern representation: Uttar
Pradesh’s seats would rise from 80 to 128, Bihar from 40 to 70, Madhya Pradesh from 29 to 47, and Rajasthan from 25 to 44. In contrast, southern states would see modest gains or even losses. Andhra Pradesh would increase from 25 to 28 seats, Telangana from 17 to 20, Tamil Nadu from 39 to 41, and Karnataka from 28 to 36. Kerala, with its exemplary social indicators, could see its seats decline from 20 to 19.
Second-class Citizens
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin warned on Wednesday that the bill, if passed, would reduce the people of Tamil Nadu to “secondclass citizens in their own country.”
He added: “When our MPs have no voice, will we have a voice? And if we do not raise our voice now, there will be no voice left for us to raise.” Stalin further asserted that the changes would make it impossible for a Prime Minister from South India to emerge in the future.
In Karnataka, Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar described the proposal as one that would “systematically reduce” southern representation in Parliament. He called it “punishing progress and good governance” and warned that it would politically marginalise the South.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan expressed suspicion that the bill aimed to “subvert the federal system.” He noted the lack of consensus with states and voiced concern that northern demographic dominance was being translated into long-term political power.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee linked the delimitation exercise to a potential National Register of Citizens (NRC), alleging it could be used to delete names from electoral rolls and facilitate the entry of outsiders.
She pointed to the recent deletion of over 60 lakh Hindu and 30 lakh Muslim names in the West Bengal through special electoral roll revisions.
Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi termed the bill an “anti-national act,” criticising the government’s tactic of bundling the seat increase with women’s reservation as a “clever ploy” to sneak through the controversial provision.
Controversial Elements of the Bill
The bill would have granted Parliament greater flexibility to decide the timing and basis of delimitation of constituencies, including which census to use, requiring only a simple majority for such decisions. This raised fears of executive overreach.
Commenting on the implications, M.R. Madhavan, President of PRS Legislative Research, wrote in “The Hindu” that it would allow “the government of the day to fix everything as per its wish.”
The proposal left the size of the Rajya Sabha unchanged at 245 seats, potentially tilting the balance of power further toward the Lok Sabha in joint sittings, presidential elections, and other matters.
It would also raise the cap on the size of the Council of Ministers from 81 to around 122 (15% of the expanded Lok Sabha).
Additionally, the larger House would reduce individual MPs’ opportunities to speak or participate in proceedings, especially given that Parliament currently sits for fewer than 70 days a year.
Madhavan contrasted this with the British House of Commons, which has 650 members but holds over 150 sittings annually and relies heavily on a robust committee system — a practice largely absent in India, where fewer than one-fifth of bills are referred to committees.
He stressed the need for thorough public and parliamentary deliberation on such far-reaching changes, recommending referral to a parliamentary committee for expert input.
The defeat marks a rare reversal for the Modi government in the Lower House and highlights deep regional fault lines over federal representation and demographic politics in India.
END
