Current Affairs Topics Quiz Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

TDP, YSRCP, JDU back Constitution (Amendment) Bill; Akali Dal opposes

April 17, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance GS Paper 2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • BJP's key NDA allies — Telugu Desam Party (TDP) from Andhra Pradesh and Janata Dal (United) from Bihar — announced support for the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026.
  • YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), while supporting the bill, attached a condition: the delimitation formula must remain fair to all states, including Andhra Pradesh.
  • Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) broke ranks and opposed the bill, citing concerns about Punjab's representation.
  • The support of TDP and JDU — both from states that stand to gain seats under a population-based delimitation — reveals the regional political calculus at play: states with high population growth rates (relative to 1971 data) stood to gain more seats, while states with successful population control stood to lose relative weight.
  • Despite their support, the bill failed because the combined NDA (including TDP and JDU support) could not muster the 2/3rd of present-and-voting threshold under Article 368.

Static Topic Bridges

The Federal Dimension of Lok Sabha Seat Allocation — Articles 81 and 82

The Lok Sabha's composition is governed by Article 81, which sets out how seats are allocated to states. Article 82 requires readjustment after each census. Together, they define the constitutional framework for representation of states in the lower house.

  • Article 81(1): The House of the People shall consist of not more than 550 members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the States [up to 530 from states, up to 20 from UTs]
  • Article 81(2): The allocation of seats to each state shall be determined so that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, as far as practicable, the same for all States — this is the proportionality principle
  • Article 82: After each census, Parliament shall by law provide for readjustment of (a) the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States, and (b) the division of each State into territorial constituencies
  • 42nd Amendment (1976): Froze the allocation of seats per state based on 1971 Census data — this freeze prevented southern states from losing seats as their population growth slowed
  • 84th Amendment (2001): Extended the freeze until the first census taken after 2026 (i.e., Census 2027)
  • The 131st Amendment Bill proposed increasing total seats from 543 to 850, with a "proportional freeze" formula — no state would lose its current number of seats in absolute terms, but relative shares would be redistributed based on 2011 Census data

Connection to this news: TDP (Andhra Pradesh) and JDU (Bihar) supported the bill because their states' populations grew significantly between 1971 and 2011. Under the proposed formula, these states would gain additional seats in absolute terms. Akali Dal's opposition likely reflects Punjab's concerns — Punjab's population growth has been moderate, and any dilution of Punjabi representation in a 850-seat Lok Sabha could be seen as disadvantageous.

States That Gain vs States That Lose Under Population-Based Delimitation

  • Under the 1971 freeze, representation is calculated as follows:
  • Uttar Pradesh: 80 seats for ~200 million people (2021) = 1 MP per 2.5 million
  • Tamil Nadu: 39 seats for ~77 million people (2021) = 1 MP per 1.97 million
  • This means a Tamil Nadu voter's representation is proportionally stronger under current arrangements
  • Projected gains from 2011 Census-based delimitation: UP (+~14 seats), Bihar (+~8 seats), Maharashtra (+~5 seats), Rajasthan (+~6 seats)
  • Projected relative losses: Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka — while they may not lose absolute seats under the 131st Amendment's "proportional freeze," their relative weight decreases
  • The "Daakhil" formula in the 131st Amendment Bill: Every state would get at least as many seats as it currently has (543-seat floor locked in per state), with additional seats distributed proportionally to all states based on 2011 data

Connection to this news: YSRCP from Andhra Pradesh supported the bill but with reservations — Andhra is a state that split (AP-Telangana bifurcation, 2014), with both halves seeking their fair share. Their conditional support reflects the complexity of the federal bargain: the seat expansion could help Andhra recover representational ground, but only if the formula is equitable.

The 42nd and 84th Constitutional Amendments — Freeze Provisions

  • 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 (during Emergency): One of the most controversial amendments — inserted 59 provisions at once. Among them: froze Lok Sabha seat allocations to states at 1971 Census levels until 2001. Primary motivation: avoid punishing states (especially southern) for complying with population control policies.
  • 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001: Extended the freeze until "the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 are published" — meaning Census 2027 data must be published before delimitation can proceed. Also readjusted constituency boundaries within states (without changing seat numbers per state) based on 1991 Census data.
  • Article 334: Sets a sunset clause on SC/ST reservation and Anglo-Indian reserved seats in Parliament and state assemblies — extended multiple times, now by the 104th Amendment (2020) until 2030.
  • The 2026-era situation: Census 2027 is ongoing. The 84th Amendment's freeze technically expires when Census 2027 data is published. The government tried to use this window to pre-emptively shape delimitation via the 131st Amendment Bill.

Connection to this news: Akali Dal's opposition and YSRCP's conditional support illustrate that even among parties that broadly favour delimitation, the specific formula for seat distribution is a fraught federal negotiation. The 131st Amendment Bill failed to achieve the consensus across party lines needed for a constitutional amendment.

Key Facts & Data

  • Parties supporting 131st Amendment Bill: BJP + TDP + JDU + YSRCP (with conditions) + some smaller allies
  • Parties opposing: Congress, DMK, TMC, SP, NCP, Shiv Sena (UBT), Akali Dal, CPI(M), and others
  • Final vote: 298 for, 230 against — needed 352 to pass
  • Article 81: Proportional representation in Lok Sabha (population-based seat allocation)
  • Article 82: Census-linked readjustment of Lok Sabha seats
  • 42nd Amendment (1976): Froze seats based on 1971 Census
  • 84th Amendment (2001): Extended freeze until post-2026 Census
  • States with highest population growth (1971-2011): Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh
  • States with lowest population growth: Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka
  • Total Lok Sabha seats under 131st Amendment proposal: 850 (up from 543)
  • SC/ST reserved seats under proposed 850-seat Lok Sabha: Would increase proportionally (Article 330 proportionality principle)