The Narendra Modi government heads into the Monsoon Session of Parliament, beginning July 20, with stronger numbers than it had just three months ago and a legislative agenda that could once again include key constitutional amendment bills.
Recent defections from Opposition parties have improved the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance’s strength in Parliament, potentially giving the government greater confidence to pursue proposals such as the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, which seeks to remove the Prime Minister, chief ministers and ministers from office if they remain in judicial custody for more than 30 days, even before conviction in certain cases.
Another major proposal is the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, which seeks to operationalize the already-passed 33% reservation for women in legislatures through delimitation. The bill was defeated during the previous session in April after the government fell short of the required two-thirds majority.
The broader One Nation, One Election (ONOE) proposal also remains under parliamentary scrutiny.
The Congress has once again accused the BJP of using defections to improve its numbers in Parliament with the ultimate aim of amending the Constitution, alleging that such moves could eventually impact reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
Speaking on Saturday, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh claimed the BJP was attempting to improve its constitutional arithmetic through political defections.
“Despite many efforts, they didn’t get a two-thirds majority… They’re splitting parties. But they’re not going to get a two-thirds majority,” he said.
“Their real motive is to change the Constitution of India… The purpose of crossing 400 seats was to be in a position to change the Constitution,” Ramesh added, referring to the BJP’s “Ab Ki Baar, 400 Paar” campaign during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, in which the party fell short of the majority mark on its own.
Why constitutional amendments remain difficult
Unlike ordinary legislation, constitutional amendments require a much higher threshold under Article 368 of the Constitution.
With the Lok Sabha’s current effective strength at 540 members, a constitutional amendment requires not only a simple majority of at least 271 members but also the support of two-thirds of members present and voting. If all 540 MPs participate, at least 360 votes are required. Even with lower attendance, the required numbers remain significantly high.
Although the NDA’s strength has crossed the 300-mark following recent defections and support from allied MPs, it still remains short of an assured two-thirds majority. The Rajya Sabha also presents similar numerical challenges, making the support or abstention of regional parties crucial for the government’s constitutional agenda.
First hurdle: Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill
Among the bills expected to feature during the Monsoon Session is the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, which proposes that the Prime Minister, Union ministers, chief ministers and state ministers should automatically lose office if they remain in judicial custody for more than 30 consecutive days in cases punishable with imprisonment of at least five years.
The proposal was introduced last year before being referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
According to PTI, the committee is expected to adopt its report around July 17, paving the way for the bill’s introduction during the upcoming session.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah has defended the proposal, arguing that public representatives should not continue governing while in jail.
“No minister, Chief Minister or Prime Minister in the country can run the government while being in jail,” Shah had said, citing the example of Arvind Kejriwal.
Responding to concerns that politically motivated cases could be misused, Shah had said, “If there is a fake case, the courts of the country are there to grant bail. If bail is not granted, then the person will have to quit.”
He also pointed out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had voluntarily brought the office of the Prime Minister within the scope of the proposed amendment.
Opposition parties, however, have argued that the proposal effectively penalises individuals before conviction and could be misused through politically motivated prosecutions.
Women’s reservation and delimitation
The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill remains one of the government’s most significant constitutional proposals.
The bill seeks to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha, undertake fresh delimitation based on the 2011 Census and operationalise the women’s reservation law before the 2029 general election.
While the government maintains that delimitation is necessary to implement the 33% women’s reservation law passed in 2023, Opposition parties argue that the proposal is primarily aimed at redistributing parliamentary seats.
The Congress and parties such as the DMK have expressed concerns that delimitation based on population would benefit northern states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar while reducing the political influence of southern states.
Several Opposition leaders have also questioned why the women’s quota cannot be implemented under the existing Lok Sabha strength. The government has maintained that expanding the House is necessary to ensure fair representation.
One Nation, One Election remains under review
The government’s larger constitutional roadmap extends beyond the current session.
The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, which seeks to implement the One Nation, One Election proposal, remains under examination by a 39-member Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary. Parliament has already extended the committee’s tenure to continue consultations.
Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly argued that frequent elections slow governance and development, while Chaudhary has described simultaneous elections as a historic reform that would serve the country’s long-term interests.
However, constitutional experts continue to express differing views. Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his submission before the committee, reportedly said that while the Constitution does not require separate elections, caution must be exercised before granting the Election Commission broad powers to alter assembly tenures for synchronising polls.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran has argued that the proposal raises significant federalism concerns, while political scientist Milan Vaishnav has cautioned against redesigning democratic institutions without broad political consensus.
Reservation debate returns
The government’s constitutional agenda has once again revived political debate around reservations.
The issue first gained prominence during the 2015 Bihar Assembly elections after Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat suggested reviewing the reservation policy. The BJP was then forced to distance itself from the remarks as the Grand Alliance successfully projected the election as a battle to protect reservations.
The Congress-led INDIA bloc revived similar concerns during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, alleging that the BJP’s “Beyond 400” campaign was aimed at securing enough seats to amend the Constitution and weaken reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly dismissed the allegation, stating that “as long as Modi is alive, no one can end reservation.”
Despite that, the Congress has continued to link the government’s constitutional agenda with concerns over reservation.
Jairam Ramesh alleged that the BJP’s “real and ultimate target” was to amend the Constitution and weaken reservations, while arguing that delimitation was only one part of a broader political strategy.
At present, however, there is no constitutional amendment bill before Parliament proposing any changes to reservations for SCs, STs or OBCs.
