The Election Eve Gambit, Women’s Reservation, Electoral Manipulation, and the BJP’s High-Stakes Risk
The Budget session of Parliament was adjourned on April 2, 2026, after the completion of financial business. It was the right time to adjourn. Polling in the state Assembly elections of Assam, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry had been scheduled for April 9. Nominations for the state Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal had commenced on March 30, with polling fixed for April 23 (and April 29 in West Bengal). MPs from these states were anxious to return to their constituencies to campaign. There was, in fact, no urgent business to transact before the end of April. The unfinished task was to complete the elections that were underway without further misadventures.
Yet, within days of the adjournment, the government announced that Parliament would be re-convened on April 16-18—right in the middle of the election season, just days before Tamil Nadu and West Bengal go to the polls. The stated purpose: to pass legislation implementing the Constitution 106th Amendment Act, 2023, which reserves 33 per cent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. The government is reportedly proposing to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha from 543 to 816 seats and reserve one-third of those for women—a constitutional amendment requiring a special majority in each House. The ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) does not have a two-thirds majority on its own. It is banking on the absence of opposition MPs from Tamil Nadu (39 seats) and West Bengal (28 seats), who will be busy campaigning in their home states. This is an election-eve gambit of breathtaking audacity—and risk.
The S.I.R. Mischief: Disenfranchisement Before the Vote
Before examining the women’s reservation gambit, it is essential to understand the context in which these elections are being held. The Special Summary Revision (S.I.R.) of electoral rolls has been a subject of intense controversy. As noted in a previous Indian Express column (“Millions of Citizen Non-Voters!”, March 22, 2026), the S.I.R. was not a misadventure but deliberate mischief. It was intended to disenfranchise millions of citizens. On average, 10 per cent of the adult population of S.I.R.-impacted states had been struck off the electoral rolls. These included Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal—the very states that are now going to the polls.
The S.I.R. battle of West Bengal was being fought in the Supreme Court. The article’s author, former Union Minister P. Chidambaram, notes that no one seemed to have brought to the notice of the Court the scale of the disenfranchisement. Ten per cent of adult citizens—in a country where voter turnout is often celebrated as a sign of democratic health—is a staggering number. If true, it represents a systematic effort to shape the electorate, to exclude certain voters from the franchise. The timing is suspicious: the S.I.R. was conducted just before major state elections. The effect is undeniable: millions of citizens who had previously voted now find their names deleted, with opaque procedures for restoration. The government’s intention to reconvene Parliament during the election season, rather than allowing the electoral process to unfold without interference, is consistent with a pattern of playing with the basic architecture of democracy.
The Women’s Reservation Law: Passed, Then Ignored for 30 Months
The Constitution 106th Amendment Act, 2023 (the Nari Shakti Vandana Adhinayam) was passed by Parliament in September 2023 with unanimous support. It reserved 33 per cent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and the Delhi legislative assembly. At the time, opposition parties raised concerns about the linkage to census and delimitation, but they supported the Bill nonetheless. The Prime Minister called it a “landmark moment.” The celebrations were bipartisan.
Then, for 30 months, nothing happened. The government ignored the law it had passed. There was no movement on the census, which is a prerequisite for delimitation, which is a prerequisite for implementing the reservation. The law was designed, through the careful insertion of the word “after” three times in Article 334A, to ensure that reservation would not—and could not—come into effect until after 2029. The sequence was clear: first, a census; then, a delimitation exercise; then, the reservation. Given that the last census took years to complete and the last delimitation took six years, the law was, in effect, a promise for the distant future, not the near term.
Suddenly, in April 2026—30 months after the law was passed, and just days before major state elections—the government woke up. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs wrote to Opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge, proposing to reconvene Parliament to discuss implementation. Kharge suggested an all-party meeting after April 29 (after the elections). The Minister rejected this, claiming that “such a timeline will delay the implementation of women’s reservation… and may adversely impact the feasibility of implementing the provisions of the Act in time for the 2029 General Election.” This is, as Chidambaram notes, “pure baloney.” April 16 and April 29 would make no difference to a process that requires a census and delimitation that have not even begun. The urgency is manufactured, not genuine.
The Gambit: Increasing Lok Sabha Strength to 816 Seats
The speculation, since confirmed by the Prime Minister, is that the government will bring a Constitution Amendment Bill to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha from 543 to 816 seats and reserve one-third of those seats for women. This is a massive expansion—a 50 per cent increase in the size of the lower house. It would require a fresh delimitation exercise across all states, based on the yet-to-be-completed census. It would raise profound questions about federal balance: states that have controlled their population growth (like Tamil Nadu and Kerala) might see their representation reduced relative to states with higher population growth (like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar). It would be the most significant change to India’s parliamentary structure since independence.
The government is taking this step without building consensus. The Opposition was not taken into confidence. The request for an all-party meeting was ignored. The legislation is being rushed through during the election season, when MPs from Tamil Nadu (39 seats) and West Bengal (28 seats) will be busy campaigning in their home states and may be absent from Parliament. The NDA does not have a two-thirds majority on its own. It is banking on the absence of opposition MPs to reach the required numbers. This is not honest, bonafide legislation; it is a political ambush.
Why the Risk? The Government’s Calculations
Why is the government taking this risk? There are several possible explanations, not mutually exclusive.
First, political messaging. The women’s reservation law is popular. By positioning itself as the party that is finally implementing it—overcoming opposition obstruction, rushing to pass enabling legislation—the BJP hopes to consolidate its support among women voters. The timing, just before the Tamil Nadu and West Bengal elections, is designed to influence those polls. The message is: the BJP delivers for women; the opposition stalls.
Second, forcing the opposition’s hand. If opposition MPs from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal stay away to campaign, the government can pass the Bill with the help of its allies and supporting parties. If they stay in Parliament instead of campaigning, they can be accused of prioritising political games over their constituents. It is a trap: either way, the opposition loses. If they attend Parliament, they are absent from the campaign trail in crucial states. If they campaign, they are absent from the vote, and the Bill passes with the government claiming a mandate.
Third, creating a legacy. The Prime Minister is in his third term. He may be looking for a legacy-defining achievement. Expanding the Lok Sabha and implementing women’s reservation would be historic—the kind of reform that outlasts any single government. The risk of failure is real, but the reward of success is immense.
Fourth, testing the opposition’s unity. The INDIA bloc is a coalition of disparate parties with different interests. The government may be calculating that not all opposition MPs will coordinate their absence or presence. Some may defect, some may stay away for other reasons, some may vote with the government. By forcing a vote, the government exposes the fault lines within the opposition.
The Risk: A Potential Backfire
The gambit could backfire. If opposition MPs from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal coordinate to remain in Parliament—sacrificing a day or two of campaigning—they could defeat the Bill. The NDA does not have a two-thirds majority. The opposition, combined with the NDA’s own allies who may have reservations about expanding the Lok Sabha (which could reduce their states’ relative representation), could block the amendment. A defeat would be a major embarrassment for the government, especially after the Prime Minister has confirmed the plan.
Even if the Bill passes, the government may have won a pyrrhic victory. The expansion of the Lok Sabha and the delimitation exercise will take years. The census has not even begun. The 2029 election is still three years away. The opposition can legitimately claim that the government is rushing a symbolic measure while neglecting the substantive work required to make it a reality. The women of India have waited decades; they can wait a few more months for a proper, consultative process.
Moreover, the manner of passage—rushing through during elections, without all-party consultation, banking on the absence of opposition MPs—will taint the legislation. It will be seen as a political manoeuvre, not a principled reform. The BJP will claim credit, but the opposition will cry foul. The public may see through the cynicism.
The Constitutional and Procedural Hurdles
Beyond the political calculations, there are significant constitutional and procedural hurdles. Amending the Constitution to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha requires a special majority in each House: one-half of the total strength of the House (so at least 273 MPs in the Lok Sabha must be present and vote) and two-thirds of the members present and voting must support it. The NDA currently has around 340 MPs in the Lok Sabha—a comfortable majority, but not two-thirds of the 543-seat House. Two-thirds of the total strength is 362. The NDA needs at least 362 votes if all MPs are present. It does not have that many on its own. It needs opposition support or, at minimum, opposition absence.
The government is banking on the absence of MPs from Tamil Nadu (39) and West Bengal (28)—a total of 67 MPs. If these 67 are absent, the effective strength of the House becomes 476. Two-thirds of 476 is approximately 317. The NDA’s 340 votes would then be sufficient. This is the mathematics behind the gambit.
But the opposition is not naive. They can coordinate to keep their MPs in Parliament. They can also challenge the timing in the Supreme Court, arguing that reconvening Parliament during elections, with the specific purpose of passing a constitutional amendment when MPs from two large states are unable to attend, violates democratic norms and the spirit of the Constitution. The Court may not strike down the law, but it could delay proceedings, effectively defeating the government’s timeline.
The Irony: Women’s Reservation Used as a Political Tool
The deepest irony of the entire episode is that women’s reservation—a reform that should unite all parties, a reform that women have fought for over decades—is being used as a political tool. The government ignored the law for 30 months. It now rushes to implement it for electoral gain. The opposition, which supported the law in principle, is forced to choose between defending democratic process (by opposing the government’s timing and tactics) and supporting women’s reservation (by allowing the Bill to pass). The women of India, who should be the beneficiaries of this reform, are reduced to spectators in a political game.
As Chidambaram notes, “The women of the country have waited for decades. Together, we were part of the historic support for the reservation law. The BJP and its allies cannot walk away with all the credit for tweaking the Act. It is time to let the women of the country know that support for representation was our collective promise. And it is time we redeemed our pledge.” But the manner of redemption matters as much as the fact of it. Rushing through a constitutional amendment during elections, without consensus, banking on the absence of opposition MPs, is not redemption. It is manipulation.
Conclusion: A Test of Democratic Institutions
The election-eve gambit is a test of India’s democratic institutions. Will Parliament be used as a tool for partisan advantage, or will it function as a deliberative body where major changes are made through consensus? Will the courts intervene to protect the electoral process from interference, or will they allow the government to proceed? Will the opposition coordinate effectively, or will it be outmanoeuvred? Will the public see through the cynicism, or will it reward the government for “delivering” on women’s reservation?
The answers to these questions will shape not just the outcome of the Tamil Nadu and West Bengal elections, but the character of Indian democracy for years to come. The women’s reservation law is too important to be reduced to a political gambit. The electoral process is too precious to be interfered with by last-minute legislative ambushes. The Constitution is too foundational to be amended without consensus. The government should withdraw its plan, allow the elections to conclude, build consensus through an all-party meeting, and then proceed with the necessary legislation in a regular session. That would be statesmanship. What is being attempted now is something else entirely.
Q&A: The Election-Eve Gambit and Women’s Reservation
Q1: What is the S.I.R., and why is it described as “deliberate mischief” by the article?
A1: S.I.R. stands for Special Summary Revision—a process of cleaning electoral rolls by removing duplicate entries, deceased persons, and those who have moved away. However, the article alleges that the S.I.R. was “deliberate mischief” intended to disenfranchise millions of citizens. On average, 10 per cent of the adult population of S.I.R.-impacted states (including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal) had been struck off the electoral rolls. The timing—just before major state elections—and the opacity of the process (deletions without proper notice or opportunity to be heard) suggest a systematic effort to shape the electorate. The S.I.R. battle of West Bengal was being fought in the Supreme Court at the time of writing.
Q2: What is the government’s proposal regarding women’s reservation, and why is it controversial?
A2: The government is proposing to reconvene Parliament on April 16-18, 2026—in the middle of the election season, just days before Tamil Nadu and West Bengal go to the polls—to pass a Constitution Amendment Bill that would increase the strength of the Lok Sabha from 543 to 816 seats and reserve one-third of those seats for women (implementing the 2023 women’s reservation law). The controversy arises from the timing (during elections, when MPs from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal will be campaigning), the lack of consultation (the opposition’s request for an all-party meeting was ignored), and the government’s apparent reliance on the absence of opposition MPs (39 from Tamil Nadu, 28 from West Bengal) to achieve the required two-thirds majority, which the NDA does not have on its own.
Q3: Why does the article argue that the government’s urgency is “pure baloney”?
A3: The article argues that the government’s urgency is manufactured because the 2023 women’s reservation law (Constitution 106th Amendment Act) was explicitly worded to delay implementation. Article 334A inserts the word “after” three times: the reservation will come into effect “after” a census is taken and “after” a delimitation exercise is undertaken “after” the census figures are published. The last census took years to complete; the last delimitation took six years. The government ignored the law for 30 months after it was passed in September 2023. Now, suddenly, it claims that waiting until after the April 29 elections (a matter of weeks) would “adversely impact the feasibility of implementing the provisions of the Act in time for the 2029 General Election.” This is implausible, as the census has not even begun, and the proposed expansion to 816 seats would require a fresh delimitation that cannot be completed before 2029 regardless of whether Parliament meets on April 16 or April 29.
Q4: What is the mathematics behind the government’s gamble, and why is it risky?
A4: The NDA does not have a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha (362 out of 543). It has approximately 340 MPs. To pass a constitutional amendment, it needs two-thirds of members present and voting. If all 543 MPs are present, it needs 362 votes—more than it has. However, if MPs from Tamil Nadu (39) and West Bengal (28)—a total of 67 MPs—are absent campaigning, the effective strength becomes 476. Two-thirds of 476 is approximately 317. The NDA’s 340 votes would then be sufficient. The risk is that opposition MPs could coordinate to remain in Parliament rather than campaign, defeating the Bill. A defeat would be a major embarrassment for the government, especially after the Prime Minister confirmed the plan. Even if the Bill passes, the manner of passage—without consultation, during elections, banking on opposition absence—would taint the legislation.
Q5: What does the article suggest as the proper way forward for implementing women’s reservation?
A5: The article suggests that the government should:
-
Withdraw its plan to reconvene Parliament during the election season.
-
Allow the elections to conclude without interference.
-
Call an all-party meeting (as requested by Opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge) to build consensus on the implementation modalities.
-
Then, in a regular parliamentary session, proceed with the necessary legislation through a transparent, consultative process.
The author, former Union Minister P. Chidambaram, argues that women’s reservation is too important to be reduced to a political gambit. The women of India have waited decades. They deserve a proper, deliberative process, not a last-minute ambush. The BJP and its allies cannot walk away with all the credit for tweaking the Act; support for representation was a collective promise, and it should be redeemed through collective effort, not partisan manoeuvring.
