The Parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, which aims to introduce simultaneous elections, is unlikely to meet its deadline to submit a report during the Monsoon Session. Headed by Lok Sabha member P.P. Chaudhary, the panel plans further consultations in various States, including Uttar Pradesh, to gather wider stakeholder input. The committee has held 18 meetings in Delhi, with six former Chief Justices of India offering divergent views on the Bill's consistency with the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The panel faces the complex task of synchronising election cycles and is considering provisions like barring no-confidence motions if only one year of a government's term remains.
- The Parliamentary Joint Committee on simultaneous elections is expected to miss its Monsoon Session deadline for report submission.
- The committee is conducting extensive consultations across States to gather stakeholder input.
- Former Chief Justices of India have presented divergent views on the Bill's adherence to the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
The article criticizes the tendency to solely blame the Opposition for parliamentary disruptions and lack of legislative productivity, arguing that this overlooks the ruling party's responsibility. It points out that the Opposition's role is to question the government, and disruptions often arise from the government's failure to engage in meaningful debate or address concerns. The author emphasizes that a healthy democracy requires both a robust Opposition and a responsive government. The article calls for greater accountability from the ruling party in facilitating parliamentary functioning and upholding democratic principles, rather than deflecting blame onto the Opposition.
- Blaming the Opposition solely for parliamentary disruptions overlooks the ruling party's responsibility.
- The Opposition's primary role is to question and hold the government accountable.
- Disruptions often stem from the government's failure to engage in meaningful debate.
The article critically examines the decline of ideology and purpose in Indian politics, attributing it to frequent defections and the rise of personality-driven parties. It argues that the anti-defection law, while intended to curb instability, has paradoxically contributed to the erosion of ideological commitment by making defections more about power and personal gain than principle. The lack of internal party democracy further exacerbates the issue, leading to a disconnect between leaders and cadres. The author suggests that this "death of purpose" undermines democratic accountability and public trust, calling for reforms that strengthen party structures and re-emphasize ideological clarity for a more robust democracy.
- Indian politics is witnessing a decline in ideology and purpose, marked by frequent defections.
- The anti-defection law, intended to curb instability, has inadvertently eroded ideological commitment.
- Defections are often driven by power and personal gain rather than principled stands.
This analysis argues for the urgent implementation of the Women's Reservation Bill, highlighting the stark underrepresentation of women in Indian legislative bodies despite their high voter participation. Women constitute only about 9% of State Assembly legislators and 14-15% in Parliament, far below their 50% share in the population. The article attributes this disparity to structural barriers within the political system and cultural norms. It cites the transformative success of women's reservations in Panchayati Raj institutions as evidence of its positive impact on policy priorities and social norms, emphasizing that reservation is a catalytic intervention for a more equitable system.
- Indian women are significantly underrepresented in legislative bodies despite being active voters, with only 9% in State Assemblies and 14-15% in Parliament.
- Structural barriers, including resource-intensive politics and cultural norms, impede women's entry into political leadership.
- Successful implementation of women's reservation in Panchayati Raj institutions demonstrates its positive impact on governance and policy.
An editorial criticizes the government's handling of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which aimed to link women's reservation with delimitation based on the 2011 Census. The article labels the approach as "smoke-and-mirrors," designed to confuse and divide the Opposition. It highlights that the 2011 Census basis would disproportionately reduce the representation of southern, eastern, and northeastern states due to their lower population growth. The editorial commends the INDIA bloc's unity in defeating the Bill, emphasizing that the two-thirds threshold exists to prevent structural changes without broad agreement.
- The editorial strongly criticizes the government's method of linking women's reservation with delimitation based on the 2011 Census.
- It argues that using the 2011 Census would unfairly reduce the Lok Sabha representation of southern, eastern, and northeastern states.
- The article praises the INDIA bloc for its unity in voting against the controversial Bill, overlooking internal differences.
The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, aimed at redistributing Lok Sabha seats based on the 2011 Census and expediting women's reservation, was defeated in Parliament. It failed to secure the required two-thirds majority, with 298 votes in favour and 230 against out of 528 members present. Following its defeat, the government withdrew two linked legislations: the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Delimitation Bill, 2026. The Opposition criticized the government for linking women's reservation with delimitation based on the 2011 Census, arguing it would disadvantage southern states.
- The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, failed to pass due to insufficient votes, falling short of the two-thirds majority.
- The Bill sought to implement delimitation based on the 2011 Census and expedite women's reservation.
- The government subsequently withdrew two associated bills, the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Delimitation Bill, 2026.
The article analyzes the implications of three proposed Bills related to delimitation and women's reservation. Key proposals include increasing Lok Sabha seats from 550 to 850, basing state-wise seat allocation on population (not necessarily the latest census), and implementing one-third women's reservation after delimitation for 15 years. The author highlights that this will remove the freeze on seats until 2026, potentially shifting relative power to states like UP and Bihar, and weakening the Rajya Sabha's influence due to a disproportionate increase in Lok Sabha seats. Other implications include an increased Council of Ministers size and reduced opportunities for individual MPs to participate in parliamentary deliberations. The article stresses the need for public discussion and parliamentary committee review.
- The proposed Bills aim to increase Lok Sabha seats to 850 and base state-wise allocation on population, removing the 2026 freeze.
- Women's reservation of one-third seats will be effective after delimitation and valid for 15 years.
- The changes could shift political power towards states with higher population growth, like UP and Bihar.
The Union government has assured that all States will see a 50% increase in their Lok Sabha seats after delimitation, maintaining their current proportional strength. This clarification comes amidst concerns that the proposed Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill and Delimitation Bill, which link women's reservation to delimitation based on the latest census, could lead to a redistribution of seats disadvantaging states with stable populations. While the draft Bills don't explicitly state this proportional increase, Home Minister Amit Shah is expected to clarify it in Parliament. The Opposition INDIA bloc plans to vote against the delimitation provisions, citing concerns about potential reduction in the relative strength of Southern states.
- The Centre assures a 50% increase in Lok Sabha seats for all states post-delimitation, preserving current proportional strength.
- The proposed Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill and Delimitation Bill link women's reservation to delimitation based on the latest census.
- Concerns exist that the Bills might lead to a redistribution of seats, potentially reducing the relative strength of states with stabilized populations.
The article examines the absence of term limits for the Prime Minister in India, contrasting it with presidential term limits in other democracies and the established convention for the Indian President. It highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi's extended tenure, combining his time as Chief Minister and Prime Minister, and questions the constitutional implications. While the Constituent Assembly envisioned parliamentary accountability through mechanisms like no-confidence motions, the author argues that the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) has structurally impaired this accountability. The piece suggests reforms such as exempting confidence motions from the Tenth Schedule or introducing constitutional amendments for term limits for both Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers.
- The Indian Constitution does not impose term limits on the Prime Minister, unlike many other democracies and the convention for the Indian President.
- The Constituent Assembly relied on parliamentary accountability mechanisms like no-confidence motions to check executive power.
- The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) has weakened parliamentary accountability by binding legislators to party loyalty.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recused himself from hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner appointment law, citing "conflict of interest." This law replaced the CJI with a Union Minister on the selection panel for CEC appointments. The recusal raises questions about judicial conflict of interest, the doctrine of necessity, and the limits of pre-emptive judicial direction. The CJI's oral direction to exclude judges in the line of succession from the replacement bench is problematic, as recusal is an individual conscience matter and cannot be mandated prospectively. India lacks a statute governing judicial recusal, a binding code of conduct, or a mechanism to review recusal decisions, highlighting an urgent need for codification.
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recused himself from a case challenging the CEC appointment law, citing a "conflict of interest."
- The new law replaces the CJI with a Union Minister on the selection panel for Chief Election Commissioner appointments.
- The recusal and the CJI's subsequent direction to exclude judges in the line of succession from the replacement bench raise questions about judicial impartiality and pre-emptive judicial direction.
A resolution seeking the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was defeated by a voice vote in Parliament. The Opposition protested Union Home Minister Amit Shah's remarks concerning Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's conduct in Parliament. Mr. Shah defended Mr. Birla, stating that the Speaker serves as a neutral custodian and that questioning his integrity is akin to questioning democratic processes. He also highlighted the increased productivity of the Lok Sabha under Mr. Birla's leadership and criticized Mr. Gandhi's attendance record during crucial sessions. The motion was rejected without a division of votes as the House was not in order.
- The Lok Sabha rejected a motion to remove Speaker Om Birla by a voice vote.
- Opposition MPs protested remarks made by Union Home Minister Amit Shah regarding Rahul Gandhi's parliamentary conduct.
- Amit Shah defended Speaker Birla, emphasizing his neutrality and the increased productivity of the Lok Sabha under his leadership.
The article analyzes the Sixteenth Finance Commission's (FC16) recommendations, noting that while the States' share in the divisible pool remains at 41%, this figure is misleading. The divisible pool as a proportion of gross tax revenues has shrunk significantly due to growing cesses and surcharges retained by the Union. FC16 discontinued various grants and deferred structural reforms like amending Fiscal Responsibility Legislation and controlling off-budget borrowings. A key change is replacing the 'tax and fiscal effort' criterion with 'contribution to GDP' in the horizontal devolution formula, benefiting high-GSDP states and disadvantaging states with greater fiscal need. This re-engineering, coupled with conditional local body grants, shifts power towards the Centre and impacts states with weaker governance.
- The 41% States' share in the divisible pool is an 'illusion' as the divisible pool itself has shrunk relative to gross tax revenues due to increasing cesses and surcharges retained by the Union.
- The Sixteenth Finance Commission (FC16) discontinued revenue deficit, sector-specific, and State-specific grants, impacting targeted fiscal relief.
- FC16 deferred structural reforms such as amending Fiscal Responsibility Legislation and controlling off-budget borrowings.
The Supreme Court is seeking a balance between protecting free speech and combating fake online content, while the Union government defends its Information Technology Rules, stating they are not intended to curb humor, satire, or criticism. The Centre appealed against a Bombay High Court decision that struck down the Fact Checking Unit (FCU) notification and deemed amended IT Rules of 2023 unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 19. The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of balancing rights without destroying constitutional rights, acknowledging the potential damage of offensive online content while questioning who defines 'fake' or 'misleading.'
- The Supreme Court is deliberating on balancing free speech with the need to combat fake online content.
- The Union government asserts its IT Rules do not aim to curb humor, satire, or criticism.
- The Bombay High Court previously struck down the FCU notification and deemed amended IT Rules of 2023 unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is considering a plea challenging provisions of the Shariat Application Act, 1937, which allegedly discriminates against Muslim women in inheritance by giving them a smaller share than men. While acknowledging the discrimination, the bench orally suggested deferring to Parliament's wisdom to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) rather than judicially striking down the Act, fearing it could create a legal vacuum. The court referenced the Mary Roy vs State of Kerala judgment, which secured equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women. The Chief Justice questioned whether striking down the Act would lead to re-legislation by the court, emphasizing the complexities of judicial intervention versus legislative action on personal laws.
- The Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the Shariat Application Act, 1937, for alleged discrimination against Muslim women in inheritance.
- The court expressed concern that striking down the Act could create a legal vacuum in Muslim inheritance law.
- The bench suggested that enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) through Parliament would be a more appropriate solution, aligning with Article 44 of the DPSP.
The recent no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has reignited debate on the constitutional role and accountability of the Speaker's office. The article emphasizes the Speaker's critical role as an impartial arbiter, safeguarding members' rights and maintaining parliamentary order. It details the stringent removal procedure under Article 94(c), requiring a majority of all Lok Sabha members, reflecting the intent to ensure stability. Challenges include growing politicization, frequent confrontations, and weakening parliamentary conventions. Reforms such as reinforcing institutional norms, enhancing transparency, and codifying best practices for discretionary powers are suggested to preserve credibility and strengthen democracy.
- The Speaker's office is a critical pillar of India's parliamentary democracy, expected to be an impartial arbiter.
- The removal procedure for the Speaker is stringent, requiring a resolution passed by a majority of all Lok Sabha members under Article 94(c).
- Historically, no-confidence motions against the Speaker have been rare and unsuccessful, demonstrating the difficulty of removal.
The Lok Sabha debated a resolution moved by the Opposition to remove Speaker Om Birla, alleging partisan behavior and questioning the Chair's neutrality. Congress Deputy Leader Gaurav Gogoi initiated the debate, emphasizing the need to protect the institution's neutrality. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju countered, calling it an 'attack on democracy.' The motion was admitted after more than 50 MPs supported it, highlighting concerns over the Speaker's conduct, interruptions during debates, and the vacant Deputy Speaker post. The discussion is allotted 10 hours and will conclude with a vote, underscoring the ongoing tensions regarding parliamentary decorum and impartiality.
- The Opposition moved a resolution in Lok Sabha for the removal of Speaker Om Birla, citing concerns over the Chair's neutrality.
- The motion was admitted after receiving support from over 50 Members of Parliament.
- The debate highlighted accusations of partisan behavior by the Speaker and interruptions faced by Opposition leaders.
Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin argues for a recalibration of Indian federalism, moving away from the 'centralising bias' established during the post-Partition era. He highlights that while the Constitution is federal in structure, the Union Executive often overrides State powers through micro-management and concurrent list legislation. The article cites the S.R. Bommai case, which declared federalism part of the Basic Structure. Stalin calls for implementing recommendations from various commissions to restore state autonomy in sectors like health and education, ensuring a more efficient Union and accountable governance through decentralized power and fiscal autonomy.
- Federalism is a 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution as per the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) judgment.
- The Union government is accused of using the Concurrent List to steer state priorities through subordinate legislation and micro-management.
- The Government of Tamil Nadu constituted the Justice Kurian Joseph Committee to review contemporary federal challenges and Union-State relations.
The Supreme Court has agreed to refer petitions to a Constitution Bench to examine if Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, cripples the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The provision amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, potentially creating a 'blanket ban' on disclosing personal information of public officials. Petitioners argue this removes the 'public interest' override and the discretion of Public Information Officers to balance privacy and transparency. The court will define what constitutes 'personal information' and whether the amendment violates the fundamental right to information under Article 19 of the Constitution.
- Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, removing the proviso for public interest disclosure.
- Critics argue the amendment equates the privacy of public functionaries with that of ordinary citizens, hindering government accountability.
- The 2019 'CPIO vs Supreme Court' judgment previously established a proportionality test for balancing privacy and the right to information.
The Supreme Court questioned the Centre regarding the powers of Governors to withhold assent to State Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, asking if elected State governments are at the mercy of Governors' whims. A Presidential Reference Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, examined the Centre's submission that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent. The Solicitor-General argued that the power to withhold assent should be used sparingly, especially when it frustrates democratic will or violates fundamental rights. The Court highlighted that the Governorship should not be a "sanctum for retired politicians" and emphasized the need for constitutional interpretation to align with present-day realities.
- The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional implications of Governors withholding assent to State Bills.
- The Court questioned if elected state governments are subject to the arbitrary decisions of Governors.
- The Solicitor-General argued that the Governor's power to withhold assent should be used sparingly.
The Union Home Minister introduced three new Bills in Lok Sabha, including the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposing the removal of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and other Ministers if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. The President, Governors, or Lieutenant-Governors would be the removal authorities, with a provision for reappointment upon release. The Bills were referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for review. Opposition parties strongly criticized the legislation as "unconstitutional, anti-federal," and a step towards "medieval times," accusing the government of seeking political morality while undermining democratic principles.
- Three new Bills propose the removal of elected representatives like PMs and CMs if detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges.
- The President, Governors, or Lieutenant-Governors are designated as the authorities for such removals.
- Opposition parties have condemned the Bills as unconstitutional, anti-federal, and a potential tool for political misuse.