NEW DELHI: Has BJP cracked the code for passage of the Delimitation Bill? Perhaps, yes. As the NDA government gears up for the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament, the winds seem to be changing. In April, a united opposition had prevented the passage of Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, but three months later, now many of them are speaking in different voices.Sample these two statements made in the last few days:NCP (SP) working president Supriya Sule: “If the Delimitation Bill- a key legislative agenda of the NDA government- is based on a uniform 50 per cent increase in seats across all states, “there would be little reason to oppose it”.”Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut : We will oppose the Delimitation Bill, but if necessary amendments are made to it as suggested by them, then the opposition can “think it over”.Two key leaders in the opposition camp dropping enough hints that they could blink if the government was ready to make suitable changes in the Bill. Besides, there are already reports that the DMK, which has 22 MPs in the Lower House, may be approached by the BJP for tactical support if Stalin’s concerns over “reduction in total number of LS seats” is addressed by making suitable changes in the current Bill. DMK, which for many years did not see eye to eye with the BJP, may now soften its stand, perhaps to get even with the Congress and other opposition parties that dumped it in Tamil Nadu after the party’s shock defeat to Vijay’s TVK. If Stalin decides to support or even abstain from voting it may not come as a surprise.For now, the DMK has said it will study the Bill on proposed delimitation, as and when it is tabled in Parliament, and take a decision based on “merits” to protect Tamil Nadu’s interests.The DMK’s decision would be independent and based on merit to protect the interests of the state. The party has been given to understand that the proposed Bill on delimitation is likely to be a standalone legislation and not part of an overall bundle of connected legislations, party sources said.When the Bill was being debated in April, the biggest concern had come from the southern states. Their worry was if delimitation is linked to population or the latest census, as it should normally be by its constitutional definition, the southern states would suffer as they would lose seats based on their existing population. Now that would literally mean that they would be punished politically for being sincere in implementing birth control measures unlike many states in the north.

Congress fears isolation?

With divisions in opposition ranks visible, a worried Congress that fears isolation on the issue, has urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to convene an all-party meeting to discuss the government’s “revised proposals” on the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has asked for “adequate time” to study the proposed legislation before its introduction in Parliament.In a letter to PM Modi, the Congress chief wrote, “All of March and April, 2026, I had been writing to Hon’ble minister of parliamentary affairs requesting that the Union Government convene an all party meeting to discuss its proposals regarding Delimitation etc. Unfortunately, these requests had not been accepted. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, then failed to secure the required 2/3rd majority in Lok Sabha on 17 April, 2026 by a clear margin.““I have been reading in media reports that the Union Government now proposes to reintroduce a revised (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 during the forthcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament. I would, once again, request you to convene an All-Party Meeting to discuss the Government’s revised proposals on delimitation, etc., and give us adequate time to study them in detail before they are introduced in Parliament,” the letter read.

The 50% increase model

So, what is the key change in the Bill that is being discussed with the hope that it works as a glue to attract some of the opposition parties? Well it is the provision that Sule mentioned in her remark “Uniform 50 per cent increase in seats across all states.”Interestingly, this is not the first time that this idea has found a mention. When the Bill was first introduced in April, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, responding to the concerns of the southern states, had given a guarantee that an increase in Lok Sabha seats would not change the existing proportions of seats from states in Lok Sabha.“The proportion of seats will not change; the increase will be in the same proportion. If you want a guarantee or a promise, I will say so. If there is some good word in Tamil, I will use it. When the intention is good, we do not need to play with words,” PM Modi said while participating in the debate on three bills tabled in the ongoing special session of Parliament.Later, during the debate both Union home minister Amit Shah had reiterated this promise.In a brief intervention during the discussion, Amit Shah rejected the apprehensions of the opposition regarding reduction in number of Lok Sabha seats in southern states after delimitation exercise. Shah clarified that the proposed framework ensures that no region will lose seats in absolute terms, and that southern states will see a rise in representation.Sharing details of the change, Shah had then said: at present out of the 543 seats, the strength of southern states in the House is 129, which is approximately 23.76 percent and as per the new strength of the Lok Sabha, the number of seats will go up to 195.But the problem was that this assurance was nowhere mentioned in the Bill. So, when during the debate, Congress leader K C Venugopal sought an amended Bill making a mention of this, Amit Shah immediately agreed and sought an hour’s time to make the changes in the Bill.“We are asking the home minister if the government is ready to delink women’s reservation from delimitation and whether they will put the 50% increase across all seats in writing,” Congress MP K.C. Venugopal asked.Shah responded by saying that the government is “ready to bring an amendment” in an hour.“Adjourn the House for an hour and I will bring this amendment. Because we want to increase seats by 50%. We will do it,” he said.Well that did not happen then. The opposition stayed united and ensured that the government did not get the two-thirds majority for the passage of the Bill. But now, it seems that the government may consider incorporating this assurance in the amended Bill so that it becomes the glue to attract several parties from the opposition camp.

Can number of seats be delinked with population?

But the big question is can the number of Lok Sabha seats in a state be made independent of the population of that state?Can a Lok Sabha seat in UP covering a population of say 10 lakh voters be on a par with a Lok Sabha seat in Tamil Nadu with 6 or 7 lakh voters. If the seats are increased 50% in every state, then the distortions in ratio (voters per seat) that exist now, will continue to stay later also.The Constitution provides that the ratio of population to seats must be the same for all states across the country. The idea is that constituencies within each state should have roughly the same population for which they should be redrawn after each census. Article 82 requires that delimitation of constituencies and readjustment of seats among states be undertaken after completion of every census, using population data of that census.Interestingly, Chandrababu Naidu, who has had to do a balancing act between South concerns and being a BJP ally, had expressed his complete support for the three Bills in April on the condition that the number of seats should be delinked from the census. “You have to delink population and seats… Now the number of seats is doubled. I am 100% satisfied. This is the only way. They have finalised the right formula at this stage in a scientific manner,” Naidu had then said.Clause 9 of the proposed Delimitation Bill says that the seats will be distributed on the basis of the “latest census figures”. Here is how it reads: “The (Delimitation) Commission shall, in the manner herein provided, distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and Union territory and the seats assigned to the legislative assembly of each state to single-member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the latest census figures.”Clearly, a uniform 50% increase in seats across the states may not solve the goals of delimitation as stated in the Constitution.

Standalone or bundled?

The other concern for the opposition parties could be the bundling of the proposed legislations. On April 16, the government had moved three legislations together:1 The Constitution (131^st Amendment) Bill, 20262. The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 20263. The Delimitation Bill, 2026.The opposition had then objected to the clubbing of the Women’s reservation bill with the delimitation exercise. They claimed that Parliament had already passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023 (called Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) for reserving one-third of the total number of seats for women in Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies and Delhi assembly and questioned its linking to the delimitation exercise.DMK, whose support is crucial for the passage of the Bill, has already said that it has been given to understand that the proposed Bill on delimitation is likely to be a standalone legislation and not part of an overall bundle of connected legislations.The “50% increase model” is perhaps a quick-fix solution that takes care of the immediate need – to increase the number of seats in legislatures and pave the way for giving 33% reservation to women without disturbing the existing share of male lawmakers. This is something which no party may not have objection to. But when this is linked to delimitation, it raises the hackles of many parties, especially from the south. The Congress has already announced that it will strongly oppose the proposed Delimitation Bill if it is reintroduced in the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament. But with divisions within the opposition ranks the grand-old-party perhaps fears isolation.