What Happened
- The Congress party accused the Centre of using delimitation as a tool for a political "power grab" — characterised as "hissa chori" (share theft) — under the guise of implementing women's reservation.
- Congress leaders pointed out that the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 had already passed women's reservation, making a new constitutional amendment unnecessary to implement it.
- They argued that the women's reservation bill could take effect within the existing 543 Lok Sabha seats by simply amending Article 334A to remove the census-and-delimitation precondition.
- Congress opposed the proposed increase in Lok Sabha seats to 850, arguing it primarily benefits high-population northern states and reduces the relative representation of southern and smaller states.
- The party asserted it "unequivocally supports women's reservation" but will oppose the mechanism chosen by the government, which bundles seat expansion and delimitation with the reservation measure.
Static Topic Bridges
The 106th Amendment: What Was Already Passed in 2023
The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 — Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam — was the historic legislation that provided 33% reservation for women in Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and the Delhi assembly. It was passed in the Lok Sabha on 20 September 2023 with 454 votes for and 2 against, and in the Rajya Sabha unanimously. However, it inserted Article 334A which tied implementation to a post-enactment census followed by delimitation. This made the reservation conditional rather than immediate. Congress's argument in 2026 is that Article 334A can simply be amended to make reservation effective from the next delimitation — no new expansion of the House is needed.
- Article 330A: One-third of Lok Sabha seats reserved for women (inserted by 106th Amendment)
- Article 332A: One-third of state assembly seats reserved for women
- Article 334A: Implementation deferred until post-2023 census + delimitation
- Lok Sabha vote: 454 for, 2 against; Rajya Sabha: unanimous
- History: Women's reservation bill was first introduced in 1996; repeatedly lapsed over 27 years
Connection to this news: Congress contends that since the substantive reservation is already enshrined in the Constitution via the 106th Amendment, the government's 2026 bills are not about women's rights — they are about restructuring the Lok Sabha in a way that benefits specific states and consolidates political power.
Delimitation and Population-Based Representation
The proposed 131st Amendment seeks to expand Lok Sabha from 543 to 850 seats based on population data. India's federal democratic design has historically balanced the principle of proportional representation (one person, one vote) with federal equity (each state retains a meaningful voice). The 1976 and 2001 freezes were explicit legislative choices to prioritise federal equity. The 2026 bills reverse this balance by returning to strict proportionality, which systematically advantages states with higher population growth.
- Article 81: Composition of Lok Sabha; proposed to allow 850 members
- One-person-one-vote principle: Supports population-based seat allocation
- Federal equity principle: States as units should retain proportional voice regardless of demographic trends
- Hindi heartland states (UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, Haryana): Gain disproportionately under new formula
- Southern states + Odisha + Punjab: Lose relative political weight
Connection to this news: Congress describes this as "hissa chori" — the taking away of a share of political representation from non-Hindi-belt states by embedding a population-based formula into the Constitution via a constitutional amendment requiring only a special majority, not consensus.
Constitutional Amendment Process: Special Majority and Federal Safeguards
Article 368 of the Constitution governs the amendment procedure. Most constitutional amendments require a special majority in Parliament: two-thirds of members present and voting in each House, plus a majority of the total membership of each House. Certain amendments affecting the federal structure additionally require ratification by at least half the state legislatures. Changes to Article 81 (Lok Sabha composition) and Article 82 (delimitation) fall under ordinary special majority — they do not require state ratification.
- Article 368: Amendment procedure; special majority = 2/3 of members present + voting + majority of total membership
- Amendments requiring state ratification (Article 368(2)): Those affecting federal distribution of power, election of President, Supreme Court, High Courts
- Changes to Articles 81, 82: Require only special majority in Parliament — no state ratification needed
- This means southern states cannot veto the constitutional amendment; only their MPs' votes matter
Connection to this news: Congress highlighted this procedural vulnerability — the states most affected by delimitation have no constitutional veto over the amendment, unlike in truly federal systems. The only recourse is parliamentary opposition, which depends on the opposition having sufficient numbers.
OBC Women and Caste Census: The Congress Argument
Congress additionally argued that the delimitation bills are designed to avoid a caste census — which would reveal the actual population of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and strengthen demands for proportional OBC reservation. By linking women's reservation to delimitation and Lok Sabha expansion rather than to a caste census, the government avoids the politically sensitive question of whether OBC women (who constitute the majority of women in India) will get a sub-quota within the 33% women's reservation.
- Current women's reservation (33%): Does not specify sub-quotas for OBC women
- Congress's demand: Caste census first, then OBC sub-quota within women's reservation
- OBC population (estimated): ~50% of India's population; SEBC census data from states varies
- OBC reservation: Currently 27% in central government services (Mandal Commission, 1980)
- Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission (Mandal): Submitted 1980, implemented 1990
Connection to this news: Congress contends the Centre's "hidden agenda" is to avoid a caste enumeration that would strengthen OBC political claims, and that the delimitation exercise as designed will dilute OBC women's political representation in practice.
Key Facts & Data
- 106th Amendment passed: September 2023; Lok Sabha 454–2, Rajya Sabha unanimous
- Article 334A: Implementation contingent on post-2023 census + delimitation
- Congress demand: Amend Article 334A only; implement reservation within 543 existing seats
- Proposed expansion: 543 → 850 Lok Sabha seats; UP gains 58 seats, Bihar gains 32 seats
- Women in current Lok Sabha: ~14.4% (82 of 543 seats)
- Target after 106th Amendment: 33% (approximately 180 seats in 543-member House)
- OBC women representation concern: No sub-quota for OBCs within women's 33% reservation