The Delimitation Bill and Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2026 introduced by the government, is not aimed at women’s reservation but to get delimitation done through the “backdoor”, remarked Congress Deputy Leader Gaurav Gogoi, questioning the intent behind the introduction of the bills in the Lok Sabha.

The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill to tweak the women’s quota law was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Thursday after a division of votes. The Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill aim to implement the proposed amended women’s quota law in the Union territories of Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir.

Speaking in Lok Sabha during a debate on the Women’s Reservation Bill, Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi accused the government of attempting to take political advantage through delimitation and gerrymandering.

“What they did through delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir and in Assam, they want to do in the whole country in the name of women’s reservation,” the Congress’ deputy leader in the House said, adding the government’s actions were “shameful”.

“The government is bulldozing delimitation in the name of women’s reservation,” he said, calling the bills “anti-women, anti-caste census, anti-Constitution and anti-federal structure of the country”.

Government doing politics of symbolism in everything, says Gogoi

“Women’s reservation should be implemented on the current strength of the Lok Sabha – 543, we will fully support you. You want to bring it in 2029, please do it. But you do politics in everything, politics of symbolism in everything. It is evident in these three bills that this is not the Women’s Reservation Bill but to do delimitation through the back door,” Gogoi said.

The Congress MP accused the government of “weakening” the Constitution through the women’s reservation. “It says in Constitution that delimitation will be done based on the latest census… How is this in favour of women? This Bill is anti-women, anti-caste census, federal structure of the country.”

“In our country, when states were formed, population was not seen, but language was seen. Linguistic reorganization was done. Ethnicity was seen,” he remarked.

Questioning the proposal of inclusion of 815 Lok Sabha seats as part of the Women’s Reservation Bill, Gogoi said: “What is this way — that to implement women’s reservation, you are bulldozing delimitation. Where did this figure of 815 members come from? Who decided this number? The government itself is saying that it will finish the Constitutional amendment that women’s reservation will be done after delimitation. Where did this number come from? Did it come from Nagpur, or RSS shakha… How can government decide this number? You will use delimitation as a tool. It can’t become a tool as per the Constitution”.

He pointed out that the government’s bill states that amendments were needed as delimitation would take time.

“What that means is that you are not in favour of women’s reservation in reality and are creating obstacles repeatedly,” Gogoi said.

ALSO READ

Accusing the BJP of indulging in “politics of symbolism”, he said the three bills show that they are not aimed at women’s reservation but to get delimitation done through the “backdoor”.

“Our party is in favour of women’s reservation but you must make it simple. It should be implemented on the current strength of the House — 543 — and must not be linked to delimitation,” Gogoi asserted.

Taking a swipe at Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, Gogoi said it seemed from the minister’s speech that women’s bill is being discussed for the first time and is being considered for the first time.

“But in 2023, they made the same arguments, what the home minister (Amit Shah) said last time, the law minister repeated those remarks. It was said that the prime minister (Narendra Modi) had taken a big step and women’s reservation would be finally given but it was not done,” he said.

Shortly after the speech, Gogoi shared the proposal put forward by Congress and major opposition parties on X.

The Bills were introduced after a fiery 40-minute debate, following which the opposition pressed for the division of votes to introduce the Constitutional (131st Amendment) Bill.

The Bill was later introduced with 251 members supporting it and 185 members voting against the introduction.