131st Constitutional Amendment Bill Rejected: A Major Setback for Lok Sabha Expansion
Legislative Deadlock: Lok Sabha Rejects 131st Constitutional Amendment Bill
In a rare and historic parliamentary event, the Lok Sabha rejected the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026, on April 17, 2026. Despite receiving a majority of votes, the Bill failed to secure the special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting) required under Article 368 of the Constitution for an amendment to pass.
The Voting Tally: Falling Short of the Mark
The voting was conducted through a division vote, which records the exact count of each member's stance. Out of 528 members present and voting:
- Votes in Favour: 298
- Votes Against: 230
- Abstentions: 0
- Requirement: The Bill needed at least 352 votes (2/3rd) to pass, falling short by 54 votes.
Withdrawal of Linked Legislations
Following the defeat, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju announced the withdrawal of two allied bills: the Delimitation Bill, 2026, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The government emphasized that these three bills were part of an integrated package aimed at facilitating women’s reservation through the expansion of the House to 850 seats.
Reasons for Opposition and Debate
The Opposition, led by figures like Rahul Gandhi and K. C. Venugopal, staged a unified protest against the "clubbing" of women's reservation with delimitation. Key concerns included:
- Federal Imbalance: Fears that delimitation based on the 2011 Census would disproportionately reduce the political weight of Southern states.
- Constitutional Trickery: Allegations that the government was using women's quota as a "human shield" to redraw India’s electoral map.
- Lack of Study Time: Protests over the fact that the Bills were circulated less than 48 hours before their introduction.
Historical Significance
This marks the first time in 12 years that a Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced by the Modi-led government has been defeated on the floor of the House. Union Home Minister Amit Shah criticized the move, calling it a "sin" against the women of India, while the Opposition hailed it as a victory for federalism and the Constitution.
For TNPSC and Civil Services aspirants, this development is a critical case study in "Indian Polity," specifically regarding the types of majorities required for constitutional changes and the nuances of parliamentary procedure.
