What do you make of the government’s move?

The decision to convene a special three-day sitting to amend the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam and introduce a Delimitation Bill raises several questions about both timing and intent. While we have long supported one-third reservation for women in Parliament and State Assemblies, the sudden rush—without sharing detailed proposals in writing with all parties and amid ongoing Assembly elections in key States—appears hasty. The government prefers one-on-one discussions rather than transparent all-party consultation, which is unusual for legislation of this magnitude involving constitutional amendments, seat increases, and redrawing of constituencies.

This approach fuels suspicion that the move is not purely about empowering women but may also serve broader political objectives, such as reshaping parliamentary composition ahead of future elections. Comprehensive stakeholder deliberation is essential before finalising such far-reaching changes.

Is the opposition planning a joint strategy to counter this?

Several opposition parties were engaged by the government in one-on-one meetings, but all the opposition parties had formally written to the government that detailed proposals be circulated, and an all-party meeting be called. However, the government has ignored our request. Many parties are currently focused on crucial State elections, leaving limited time for in-depth deliberations. The opposition’s common stand is clear: women’s reservations should not be used as a vehicle for hasty and opaque processes. We want collective consultations to ensure the legislation addresses genuine concerns rather than creating new imbalances.

Has there been sufficient discussion on the delimitation exercise, given the concern of the southern States?

Discussions so far have been selective, with the government projecting that a pro-rata increase in seats will safeguard southern States by maintaining relative ratios. While this may appear reasonable on the surface, absolute numbers matter significantly in a parliamentary democracy. Under the proposed expansion, the Lok Sabha strength would rise by about 50 per cent from 543 to 816 seats. Northern States are projected to gain over 200 additional seats, while southern States gain only around 65. This disparity could diminish the effective influence of southern States and smaller regional parties, reducing the diversity that enriches the Indian polity. Concerns from southern States about long-term federal balance deserve far more substantive debate than what has been offered.

If the opposition parties oppose the Bill, it might be viewed as resistance to the quota for women and the increase in the number of seats for them. How does one counter this perception, especially since the Left has been supporting women’s quota in Parliament and State Assemblies all along?

Women’s reservation is non-negotiable for us. The Left has consistently championed a one-third reservation for women in legislatures, including supporting the 2023 Act despite its flaws. We had warned at the time that linking it to a future census and delimitation was a delaying tactic. The government, which previously ignored those concerns, now suddenly seeks to address them through these amendments. Why were such linkages introduced when women’s reservation in local bodies was implemented without similar encumbrances? The onus is on the government to provide full details and explanations. We remain firmly committed to women’s empowerment and will continue to push for its earliest possible realisation in a transparent framework.

The amendments will be based on the 2011 Census, and constituencies for SC and STs will be redrawn on that basis. What are your party’s apprehensions?

Beyond the power dynamics of the reservation, this proposal raises serious questions about the future quality of parliamentary discourse. India’s legislatures are already facing declining standards: Lok Sabha sittings have dropped from an average of 121 days (1952–1970) to around 55–68 days in recent decades, and the percentage of bills referred to committees has fallen sharply from 70 per cent to about 18 per cent. Most State Assemblies often sit for just 20–28 days a year. Adding hundreds of Members without addressing these foundational issues risks turning the House into a chaotic space with even less scope for meaningful debate and deliberation. This could inadvertently strengthen a majoritarian executive at the expense of robust legislative scrutiny. We urge careful consideration of how an expanded House can function effectively while upholding democratic standards.

The Delimitation Commission is itself going to be established in a few months. Could this exercise of amending the Women’s Reservation Act have waited till the new Census was over? The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, extended the freeze on the total number of seats until after the first Census after 2026.

The government has not adequately explained why the census was delayed or what specific constraints it now faces. We are willing to cooperate fully for the speedy and effective implementation of women’s reservation. However, the government must come clean on many aspects we have but are unable to put across, as they haven’t called an all-party meet as suggested by us.

Is a weighted approach that rewards demographic and development-related performance a better way to allocate seats rather than a population-based approach?

This was an opportune moment for the government to introduce reforms that strengthen federalism and parliamentary effectiveness. Anyone can see that the 50 per cent jump to 816 seats is intended to satisfy the male bastions, telling them that the women's reservation will not dent their citadels. Why can’t a 25 per cent increase be a better balance while addressing concerns about a dysfunctional House, and also the concerns of present incumbents losing their nurtured political base?

Of course, measures like mandating a fixed minimum number of sitting days and a structured parliamentary calendar could also have been considered. Experiences from other democracies offer valuable lessons, such as exploring the desirability of an element of proportional representation. In any case, there are substantive questions that remain unaddressed, and rushing the process without broader inputs does a disservice to parliamentary democracy.

What could be the government’s motive in calling this special Parliament session in the midst of Assembly elections? If it is at all a violation of the moral code of conduct, as has been pointed out, should not the ECI intervene?

The sudden scheduling amid the active State elections has created avoidable complications, especially for MPs from poll-bound States who will be campaigning. Constitutional amendments of this nature require wide engagement across parties and States. Perhaps the government would have thought this would bolster its image in the poll-bound States. While Parliament’s functioning is sovereign, grey areas in the proposals demand clarity. The EC should examine whether the timing raises issues under the Model Code of Conduct, particularly given its potential electoral implications. But I see no chance of it.