Congress asks if government has a new delimitation proposal to discuss with Opposition parties

The Congress on Tuesday (October 20, 2026) asked the Narendra Modi government whether it had a fresh proposal on delimitation, and why it was “stubbornly refusing” to convene an all-party meeting.

In a post on social media platform X, Congress’s communications chief Jairam Ramesh questioned whether the Centre intended to revive the Constitution Amendment Bill that was defeated in the Lok Sabha in April.

Mr. Ramesh was responding to Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju’s letter to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who had urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to convene an all-party meeting before bringing any fresh delimitation proposal to Parliament.

Mr. Ramesh claimed Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s consultations with select political parties in March this year had resulted in commitments that were not incorporated into the Constitution Amendment Bill taken up on April 16. The Bill was defeated in the Lok Sabha on April 17.

“He (Mr. Rijiju) does not mention that the HM (Home Minister) had apparently made some commitments in those consultations that were NOT contained in the Constitution Amendment Bill,” Mr. Ramesh said, referring to Mr. Rijiju’s letter.

“Instead of boosting the plantation economy”, he asked the Minister to clarify: “Does the Modi Government have a firm NEW proposal for delimitation that it has discussed with any party?”

He also asked why the government was refusing to “present its NEW proposal in a transparent manner and hear the views of all parties in a collective forum”. His third question was whether the government intended to bring back the defeated Bill and try to secure its passage with a “super-tainted” two-thirds majority. “That will no doubt fail again,” he added.

In his letter to Mr. Kharge on Monday (October 19, 2026), Mr. Rijiju said the government had consistently sought the Opposition’s support for the delimitation-linked women’s reservation legislation, and expected the Congress to cooperate.

“I am writing to you to clarify certain points and place on record the facts regarding the efforts made by the government to engage with the Opposition on this subject,” Mr. Rijiju said in his letter to Mr. Kharge.

Mr. Rijiju said he had written to Mr. Kharge on March 16, March 26 and April 12, and had also discussed the matter with him personally. During the monsoon session of Parliament, he had met the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi to seek his cooperation. After the Congress did not provide dates for discussions, the government reached out to other parties, including the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Samajwadi Party (SP), Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray or UBT), the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and the BJD (Biju Janata Dal), he said.

“However, after repeated requests, the Congress party didn’t give dates for a discussion, after which the government’s outreach had extended to other political parties,” the Minister wrote.

He questioned why the demand for consultations was being repeated when the government had already made “sustained efforts for dialogue”.

Responding to Mr. Kharge’s objection that Parliament had not been prorogued 64 days after it was adjourned sine die on August 13, Mr. Rijiju said there was “no constitutional requirement prescribing a specific period” within which a House must be prorogued. He cited previous instances of the House remaining unprorogued for extended periods: 1987 (76 days), 1989 (54 days), 2006 (49 days), 2013 (49 days), and 1963 (41 days).

In his October 16 letter to Mr. Modi, Mr. Kharge had sought an all-party meeting before any fresh Bill was taken up. Mr. Ramesh said the demand made by Mr. Kharge in four letters to the Prime Minister and two letters to Mr. Rijiju reflected the consistent position of all Opposition parties.