New Delhi: Has BJP prepared a code to pass the Delimitation Bill? Maybe, yes. As the NDA government prepares for the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament, the winds seem to be changing. In April, the united opposition had blocked the passage of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, but three months later, many of them are now speaking in different voices.Take a sample of these two statements made over the past few days:Working President of NCP (SP) Supriya Sule: : “If the delimitation bill – a key legislative agenda of the NDA government – is based on a similar 50 per cent increase in seats in all states, “there will be no reason to oppose it”, he said.Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut : : We will oppose the Delimitation Bill, but if necessary amendments are made to it as per his suggestion, the Opposition can “consider it”.Two prominent leaders of the opposition camp gave ample indications that they might blink if the government was willing to make appropriate changes in the bill. Moreover, there are already reports that the DMK, which has 22 MPs in the lower house, may be approached by the BJP for strategic support if Stalin’s concerns over “reduction in total Lok Sabha seats” are addressed by making suitable changes in the existing bill. The DMK, which did not see eye to eye with the BJP for many years, may now soften its stance, perhaps also to align with the Congress and other opposition parties that had abandoned it in Tamil Nadu after the party’s crushing defeat to Vijay’s TVK. It would not be a surprise if Stalin decided to support or abstain from voting.For now, the DMK has said it will study the bill on the proposed delimitation, when it is introduced in Parliament, and take a decision on “merits” to protect the interests of Tamil Nadu.DMK’s decision to protect the interests of the state will be independent and based on merit. Party sources said it has been explained to the party that the proposed bill on delimitation is likely to be a standalone law and not part of the overall bundle of related legislations.When this bill was being debated in April, the biggest concern came from the southern states. Their concern was that if delimitation was tied to population or the latest census, as it generally should be according to its constitutional definition, the Southern states would be disadvantaged as they would lose seats based on their existing population. Now this would literally mean that they would be politically punished for being honest in implementing birth control measures, unlike many states in the North.
Congress afraid of separation?
With divisions visible in the opposition camps, a worried Congress, which fears being isolated over the issue, has urged the Prime Minister Narendra Modi Convening an all-party meeting to discuss the government’s “amended proposals” on the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026. congress president Mallikarjun Kharge Has sought “ample time” to study the proposed law before presenting it in Parliament.In a letter to PM Modi, the Congress chief wrote, “Throughout March and April, 2026, I have been writing to the Honorable Minister of Parliamentary Affairs requesting that the Central Government convene an all-party meeting to discuss its proposals regarding delimitation, etc. Unfortunately, these requests were not accepted. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed the required 2/3 majority in the Lok Sabha on April 17, 2026. Failed to do. Margin.“The letter said, “I am reading in media reports that the Central Government is now proposing to re-introduce an amended (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, during the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament. I would once again request you to call an all-party meeting to discuss the government’s amended proposals on delimitation etc. and allow us adequate time to study them in detail before they are introduced in Parliament.”
50% growth model
So, what is the main change in the Bill that is being discussed with the hope that it will act as glue to attract some opposition parties? Well this is the provision that Sule had mentioned in his comment “uniform 50 per cent increase in seats in all states”.Interestingly, this is not the first time that this idea has been mentioned. When the bill was first introduced in April, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, responding to the concerns of the southern states, had guaranteed that the increase in Lok Sabha seats would not change the existing ratio of states’ seats in the Lok Sabha.Participating in the debate on three bills introduced in the special session of Parliament, PM Modi said, “The ratio of seats will not change; the increase will be in the same proportion. If you want a guarantee or a promise, I will say so. If there is a good word in Tamil, I will use it. When the intention is good, we do not need to play with words.”Later during the debate, both Union Home Minister Amit Shah reiterated this promise.In a brief intervention during the discussion, Amit Shah dismissed the opposition’s apprehensions about reduction in the number of Lok Sabha seats in the southern states after the delimitation process. Shah clarified that the proposed framework ensures that there will be no absolute loss of seats in any region and the representation of the southern states will increase.Sharing details of the change, Shah had then said: Out of 543 seats at present, the strength of southern states in the House is 129, which is about 23.76 per cent and as per the new strength of the Lok Sabha, the number of seats will become 195.But the problem was that this assurance was not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. In such a situation, when Congress leader KC Venugopal mentioned this during the debate and demanded an amended bill, Amit Shah immediately agreed and asked for one hour’s time to make changes in the bill.Congress MP K.C. Venugopal asked.Shah responded by saying that the government was “ready to bring amendments” within an hour.“Adjourn the House for an hour and I will bring this amendment. Because we want to increase the seats by 50%. We will do that,” he said.Well that didn’t happen then. The opposition remained united and ensured that the government did not get the two-thirds majority to pass the bill. But now, it seems that the government may consider including this assurance in the amended bill so that it can become the glue to attract many parties in the opposition camp.
Can the number of seats be separated from population?
But the bigger question is whether the number of Lok Sabha seats in a state can be made independent of the population of that state?Can a Lok Sabha seat in UP with 10 lakh voters be equal to a Lok Sabha seat in Tamil Nadu with 6 or 7 lakh voters? If the seats in every state increase by 50%, the distortions in the ratio (voters per seat) that exist now will persist later also.The Constitution provides that the ratio of population and seats should be the same in all states across the country. The idea is that each state’s constituencies should have approximately the same population, requiring them to be redrawn after each census. Article 82 requires that after the completion of each census, the delimitation of constituencies and readjustment of seats among the States should be carried out, using the population data of that census.Interestingly, Chandrababu Naidu, who has to balance the concerns of the South and being an ally of the BJP, had in April expressed his full support for the three bills on the condition that the number of seats should be delinked from the census. Naidu had then said, “You have to separate the population and the seats… Now the number of seats has doubled. I am 100% satisfied. This is the only way. They have finalized the right formula scientifically at this stage.”Clause 9 of the proposed Delimitation Bill states that the distribution of seats will be done on the basis of “latest census data”. It reads as follows: “The (Delimitation) Commission shall, in the manner herein provided, distribute the seats in the House of the People allotted to each State and Union Territory and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State among single-member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the latest census data.“Clearly, a uniform 50% increase in seats in the states cannot solve the goals of delimitation stated in the Constitution.
Standalone or bundled?
Another concern for opposition parties could be the integration of proposed laws. On 16 April, the government introduced three laws simultaneously:1 Constitution (131scheduled tribe Amendment) Bill, 20262. Union Territory Laws (Amendment) Bill, 20263. Delimitation Bill, 2026.Then the opposition had objected to linking the Women’s Reservation Bill with the delimitation process. He claimed that Parliament has already passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023 (known as the Nari Shakti Vandan Act) to reserve one-third of the total seats for women in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and the Delhi Assembly and questioned linking it to the delimitation exercise.The DMK, whose support is crucial for the passage of the bill, has already said that it has been explained that the proposed bill on delimitation is likely to be a standalone law and not part of the overall bundle of linked legislations.The “50% increase model” is perhaps a quick-fix solution that takes care of the immediate need – paving the way for increasing the number of seats in legislatures and giving 33% reservation to women without disturbing the existing share of male MPs. This is something on which perhaps no party will have any objection. But when it is linked to delimitation, it increases the problems of many parties, especially the parties of the South. Congress has already announced that it will strongly oppose the proposed delimitation bill if it is reintroduced in the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament. But the grand old party probably fears isolation due to divisions within the opposition.
