The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, seeking one-third reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, failed in the lower house. Of 528 members present, 298 voted in favour and 230 against — falling short of the required two-thirds majority of 352. Speaker Om Birla declared the bill defeated. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and Home Minister Amit Shah blamed the opposition, while Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi argued the bill had no real empowerment content.

A Constitutional Amendment Bill requires a special majority under Article 368 of the Constitution — it must be passed by a majority of the total membership of each House AND by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. These are two separate thresholds, both of which must be met simultaneously.

In this case, 528 members were present and voting. Two-thirds of 528 equals 352 — the required threshold. Only 298 voted in favour, a shortfall of 54 votes.

This bill is distinct from the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2023), which was passed in the previous Parliament. That earlier act provided for one-third reservation for women but linked its operationalisation to the completion of the delimitation exercise — meaning it does not take immediate effect. Critics, including Rahul Gandhi in this debate, argue that the 2023 act was therefore hollow in practice.

The 131st Amendment Bill appears to be a fresh attempt — whether by the government or opposition — to push women's reservation into immediacy, bypassing the delimitation conditionality. Its failure in Lok Sabha renews constitutional questions around what special majority means, how it is calculated, and what distinguishes a bill that amends the Constitution from one that merely enacts ordinary legislation.

For CLAT PG, the examiner will test whether you can calculate the special majority threshold correctly and distinguish it from a simple majority or absolute majority. For UPSC, the examiner tests the Article 368 procedure and the difference between ratification-required amendments and those that do not require state ratification.