In a dramatic setback for the Modi government, the Constitution Amendment Bill aimed at enabling women’s reservation from the 2029 Lok Sabha elections was defeated in Parliament on Friday after the opposition united against the proposal, calling it a threat to India’s democratic structure.
Although the bill secured 298 votes in favour, it failed to cross the mandatory two-thirds majority threshold, with 230 MPs voting against it, bringing the government’s plan to a halt and forcing it to withdraw two related bills on delimitation and Union Territories laws.
Rahul Gandhi Says Opposition Defeated Attempt to Alter Political Structure
Soon after the bill failed, Rahul Gandhi said the opposition had made it clear from the beginning that the proposal was not truly about women’s reservation, but about reshaping India’s political and electoral structure through the backdoor.
He argued that linking women’s reservation with delimitation was a deliberate attempt to alter the country’s political balance and insisted that the opposition would never support such a move.
Rahul also challenged the government to reintroduce the original women’s reservation law passed in 2023, promising full support from opposition parties if the Centre agreed to implement it immediately without linking it to other electoral reforms.
According to him, the opposition was ready to back women’s reservation “from today itself,” provided it was not tied to changes in delimitation or seat restructuring.
Priyanka Gandhi Calls It ‘Big Win for Democracy’
Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also hailed the defeat of the bill, saying the proposal was never genuinely intended to empower women but was instead aimed at changing the electoral framework under the cover of women’s reservation.
She said the opposition could never accept a bill that tied women’s political representation to delimitation, calling the defeat a “big win for democracy.”
Priyanka also attacked the government over its claims of supporting women’s rights, questioning its record on issues such as Hathras, Unnao, and Manipur, and accusing it of using women’s empowerment as a political slogan while failing to act in cases involving violence against women.
Why the Bill Failed Despite 298 Votes
Despite receiving 298 votes, the Constitution Amendment Bill failed because constitutional amendments require the support of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, in addition to meeting majority conditions under parliamentary rules.
With 528 MPs participating in the vote, the government needed at least 352 votes to pass the amendment, but fell well short of that mark.
The final numbers — 298 in favour and 230 against — were announced by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, officially confirming the bill’s defeat.
Two Related Bills Dropped After Amendment Failed
The government had introduced the constitutional amendment as part of a broader legislative package that also included the Delimitation Bill, 2026, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
However, after the main amendment failed to pass, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government would not proceed with the two remaining bills, effectively shelving the entire legislative package.
The defeat marks a major legislative blow to the Centre’s push to implement women’s reservation ahead of the 2029 elections, while intensifying the political confrontation between the ruling alliance and the opposition over the future of electoral reforms.
Q1. Why did the women’s reservation amendment bill fail?
The bill failed because it did not secure the required two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha.
Q2. How many votes did the bill receive?
The bill got 298 votes in favour and 230 votes against.
Q3. What did Rahul Gandhi say after the bill failed?
Rahul Gandhi said the opposition defeated an attack on the Constitution.
Q4. What happened to the other related bills?
The government dropped the Delimitation Bill and Union Territories Laws Amendment Bill after the main bill failed.
Q5. What was the opposition’s objection?
The opposition objected to linking women’s reservation with delimitation, saying it would alter political representation.
