01 Read
What happened
The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, proposing one-third reservation for women in 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 announced the Bill could not proceed. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and Home Minister Amit Shah blamed the opposition, while Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi questioned whether the Bill genuinely empowered women.
02 Understand
Why it matters
A Constitution Amendment Bill requires a special majority under Article 368 — 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. This is a stricter threshold than an ordinary Bill, which only needs a simple majority of members present and voting.
The 131st Amendment Bill failed precisely at this two-thirds threshold: 298 of 528 present voted in favour, but 352 votes (two-thirds of 528) were needed. There is no provision for a joint sitting of Parliament to resolve a deadlock on a Constitution Amendment Bill — unlike ordinary legislation under Article 108, joint sittings are unavailable here.
The earlier women's reservation legislation — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Act, 2023, known as the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam — had successfully passed both Houses in September 2023. That Act inserted Articles 330A and 332A, reserving one-third of seats for women in Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and the Delhi assembly, but made reservation operative only after the next delimitation exercise and Census. The present 131st Amendment Bill appears to be a fresh legislative attempt, possibly to revise or accelerate the implementation conditions.
For CLAT PG and UPSC CSE, the key doctrines to anchor are: (1) the special majority requirement under Article 368; (2) the absence of joint sitting for Constitution Amendment Bills; (3) the distinction between ordinary, special, and absolute majority; and (4) the Basic Structure doctrine — courts can review amendments that damage the Constitution's basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
The 131st Amendment Bill failed precisely at this two-thirds threshold: 298 of 528 present voted in favour, but 352 votes (two-thirds of 528) were needed. There is no provision for a joint sitting of Parliament to resolve a deadlock on a Constitution Amendment Bill — unlike ordinary legislation under Article 108, joint sittings are unavailable here.
The earlier women's reservation legislation — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Act, 2023, known as the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam — had successfully passed both Houses in September 2023. That Act inserted Articles 330A and 332A, reserving one-third of seats for women in Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and the Delhi assembly, but made reservation operative only after the next delimitation exercise and Census. The present 131st Amendment Bill appears to be a fresh legislative attempt, possibly to revise or accelerate the implementation conditions.
For CLAT PG and UPSC CSE, the key doctrines to anchor are: (1) the special majority requirement under Article 368; (2) the absence of joint sitting for Constitution Amendment Bills; (3) the distinction between ordinary, special, and absolute majority; and (4) the Basic Structure doctrine — courts can review amendments that damage the Constitution's basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for UPSC CSE are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial