Guwahati: A sharp political exchange unfolded in the Lok Sabha on Thursday as the Congress accused the Centre of attempting to “bulldoze” delimitation under the guise of implementing women’s reservation, during a debate on key legislative proposals.
Initiating the discussion from the Opposition benches, Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi said the party supports women’s reservation but strongly opposes linking it to the delimitation process. “Our party is in favour of women’s reservation. But it should be implemented immediately based on the current strength of 543 members in the Lok Sabha. It must not be tied to delimitation,” he said.
The debate revolved around the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, along with the Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, which were introduced in the House amid a division of votes.
Questioning the government’s narrative, Gogoi asked why the move was being projected as historic. “The same assurances were made in 2023. What the Home Minister said then is being repeated now,” he said.
Referring to Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s remarks during the 2023 debate on the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, Gogoi said the government had earlier promised that a census would be conducted after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, followed by delimitation and then implementation of women’s reservation. “What has changed in the last two to three years?” he asked.
He argued that the current proposal indicates delays in implementation. “The government now says the next census and delimitation will take considerable time. This raises serious doubts about its intent,” he said, adding that the reservation could have already been implemented if the Centre had acted earlier.
Accusing the BJP of engaging in “politics of symbolism”, Gogoi alleged that the legislation was a backdoor attempt to push delimitation. “This is not genuinely about women’s reservation. It is a way to carry out delimitation under a more acceptable label,” he said.
He also claimed that the move reflects the government’s reluctance to conduct a caste census, saying the decision to undertake such an exercise came only after sustained pressure from the Opposition.
In a broader critique, Gogoi accused the government of undermining constitutional principles. “Laws should be implemented as envisioned in the Constitution, irrespective of which party is in power. But here, it appears that a parliamentary majority is being used to reshape the framework to suit political interests,” he said.
Highlighting concerns over federal balance, he said states were formed not only on the basis of population but also linguistic and cultural identities. “If representation is tied solely to population, smaller states and communities will be disadvantaged,” he added.
Drawing historical parallels, Gogoi referred to decisions taken during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who had placed conditions on delimitation exercises. “Are we now suggesting that we know better than them?” he asked.
He also questioned reports of increasing the number of Lok Sabha seats. “Where did the figure of 850 come from? Without a census or proper parliamentary process, how can such a number be determined?” he said.
Citing examples from Assam and Jammu & Kashmir, Gogoi alleged inconsistencies in delimitation practices. He said while Jammu & Kashmir used the 2011 Census through a commission, Assam’s exercise was conducted using the 2001 Census through a different process.
He further pointed to disparities in representation within Assam. “One Lok Sabha constituency has around 14 lakh people while another has nearly 26 lakh. This defeats the purpose of ensuring equal representation,” he said.
Gogoi also criticised the lack of administrative coherence in constituency boundaries, citing instances where geographically disconnected areas were grouped together or local bodies split across constituencies.
Concluding his remarks, he said the Congress would oppose the bills in their current form. “We support women’s reservation, but not in a way that delays it, complicates it, or uses it as a cover for other political objectives,” he said.
The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill was eventually introduced with 251 members voting in favour and 185 against after a nearly 40-minute debate.