By Vickram Kilpady
It is less a whodunnit than a why-done-it. For the first time in nearly 12 years, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, tasted defeat in the Lok Sabha.
For over a decade, the lower house of parliament had largely functioned as the ruling party’s legislative arena. With its commanding majority, the BJP had pushed through a series of major reforms—from the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution—often with limited debate. Bills passed swiftly; the ayes invariably overwhelmed the nays.
But the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, aimed at increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha to 815 members, met a different fate. The Bill was defeated 298-230, far short of the two-thirds majority—around 352 votes—needed to amend the Constitution. Two related bills are expected to be withdrawn alongside it.
The outcome marked a rare moment of Opposition unity. Parties that frequently struggle to hold together ahead of elections or during seat-sharing negotiations stayed the course in parliament, voting together to block the amendment. The coalition included the party led by Asaduddin Owaisi, demonstrating a level of coordination seldom seen among Opposition ranks.
Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi framed the issue as a matter of federal balance rather than women’s empowerment. Women’s reservation, he argued, had already been approved earlier. “This is nothing short of anti-national,” he said in the Lok Sabha, accusing the government of trying to reduce the representation of southern, northeastern, and smaller states.
The loudest resistance came from the South. MK Stalin, chief minister of Tamil Nadu and president of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, had already made delimitation a campaign issue. During the state election campaign, he symbolically burned a copy of the proposed amendments and revived the visual language of the party’s historic protests against Hindi imposition.
Yet, the bigger puzzle is why the government pushed the Bill at all, given the uncertain arithmetic.
One possibility was that it sought to test the loyalty of allies. In Bihar, the political arrangement had recently shifted after Nitish Kumar stepped aside as chief minister, making way for Samrat Choudhary while moving to the Rajya Sabha. Another potential test case was N Chandrababu Naidu and his Telugu Desam Party, which had publicly raised concerns about population decline in southern states and its impact on future representation. Yet, neither ally broke ranks.
A more plausible explanation lies in electoral strategy. Major assembly elections loom in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. In Bengal, the BJP appears to sense that the numbers may not tilt decisively in its favour despite contentious revisions of electoral rolls. In Tamil Nadu, the political landscape has been further complicated by the entry of actor-politician Joseph Vijay, whose appeal among young voters has reshaped campaign narratives.
In both states, women voters have emerged as a critical constituency. The BJP credits welfare-focused outreach to women for recent assembly victories in states such as Maharashtra and Bihar. By linking the Bill to women’s representation, the government sought to frame the debate in moral and electoral terms.
Introducing the amendment, Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned that women across India would not forgive those who opposed it. Opposition parties quickly countered on social media, pointing out that the women’s reservation law had already been passed in 2023—with 454 MPs voting in favour and only two opposing.
That earlier law had postponed implementation until after the 2027 Census and the delimitation exercise that would follow. Critics argue that the new amendment was designed to bypass this timeline by using the 2011 Census, the most recent completed census, for delimitation.
Two formulas were reportedly considered for expanding Lok Sabha seats. One proposed a flat 50 percent increase for every state. Another would allocate seats strictly according to the 2011 population figures.
Under the latter formula, northern states would gain disproportionately. Uttar Pradesh, which already has 80 seats, could rise to as many as 140. Gujarat could move from 26 to 42. Such shifts would significantly alter the political balance of parliament.
Critics argue that this could concentrate electoral power in a handful of populous northern states. A party sweeping states like Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Bihar might no longer need strong performances elsewhere to dominate the Lok Sabha.
Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, the National Conference MP from Srinagar, warned that the exercise could weaken minority representation and centralize political power in ways that reshape the country’s federal compact.
In the end, the amendment failed. But the debate it ignited—about population, representation, federalism and electoral arithmetic—has only just begun.
The post Why The Government Risked—and Lost—A Landmark Vote appeared first on India Legal.