Chidambaram urged both parties to reject any revised version of the legislation, warning that support would amount to a “betrayal” of the principles that shaped their opposition when the proposal was considered by the Lok Sabha in April.
“The BJP is planning to bring back the 131st Constitution Amendment Bill that failed in the last session of Parliament in April 2026,” Chidambaram said in a social media post. He alleged that the ruling party was attempting to persuade the two regional parties to vote for the measure or help its passage through abstentions.
His intervention has placed renewed attention on the parliamentary arithmetic surrounding the constitutional amendment, which would require a majority of the total membership of each House and the support of at least two-thirds of members present and voting.
The earlier Bill was defeated in the Lok Sabha on April 17 despite receiving 298 votes in favour and 230 against. With 528 members voting, the measure needed 352 votes to meet the constitutionally mandated two-thirds threshold. It fell 54 votes short, forcing the government to withdraw associated proposals dealing with delimitation and changes to Union Territory laws.
The legislation sought to raise the maximum elected strength of the Lok Sabha to 850 members. Of these, up to 815 would represent constituencies in the states and 35 would represent Union Territories. The current constitutional ceiling provides for up to 530 elected members from the states and 20 from Union Territories, although the House presently has 543 elected seats.
The Bill also proposed giving Parliament greater authority to determine which census would be used for allocating seats and redrawing constituencies. It would have enabled a delimitation exercise through a commission established by law, while removing provisions that have kept the distribution of parliamentary seats frozen for decades.
The legislative package was presented as a route to implementing the 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies before the 2029 general election. The women’s quota law enacted in 2023 links implementation to a delimitation exercise following the publication of a census conducted after the amendment came into force.
Opposition parties challenged the April proposal because it combined women’s reservation with a wider restructuring of parliamentary representation. Parties from southern states argued that population-based allocation could reduce their relative influence because states that achieved stronger population control could gain fewer additional seats than faster-growing northern states.
The government maintained that every state would gain seats under an expansion of the Lok Sabha. Home Minister Amit Shah has said a proposed 50 per cent increase would raise the House’s strength from 543 to 816 and provide additional representation to all southern states. The earlier constitutional Bill, however, permitted a maximum House strength of 850.
The DMK had opposed the April package and subsequently reiterated that it would not accept a delimitation formula that compromised Tamil Nadu’s representation or penalised states for controlling population growth. Its position is politically significant after strains emerged in its relationship with Congress and speculation grew that the BJP could seek issue-based cooperation.
The NCP also voted against the measure during the earlier contest. Chidambaram’s appeal reflects concern within Congress that shifts among regional parties could weaken the opposition’s ability to block a constitutional amendment in a House where the BJP-led coalition does not independently possess the required two-thirds majority.
The BJP could benefit if opposition parties abstain because the second threshold is calculated from members present and voting. Nevertheless, the amendment must also secure the support of a majority of the Lok Sabha’s total membership, limiting the effect of abstentions unless the government retains sufficient affirmative votes.
