Trust deficit

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh has criticised the Modi government for not proroguing the Lok Sabha after both Houses were adjourned sine die on August 13, 2026, arguing that the unusual delay may be linked to the government’s effort to revive the defeated Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill. There is certainly a political question here, but it must not be turned into a proven fact without evidence. Adjournment sine die does not formally end a parliamentary session. Under Article 85, prorogation is the formal termination of a session by the President, and the Constitution does not prescribe that prorogation must follow within two, four or ten days of a sine-die adjournment. Lok Sabha Rule 15 also allows the Speaker to call a sitting even after the House has been adjourned sine die. The present delay is therefore politically unusual, but not without precedent, with gaps of 28 days in 2015 and 20 days in 2021 having been reported. The more important issue is the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, which was introduced on April 16 and defeated in the Lok Sabha on April 17 by 298 votes to 230, with 528 members voting. The bill therefore fell 54 votes short of the 352 votes required. Since Article 368 requires not only a two-thirds majority of members present and voting but also a majority of the total membership of the House, the government cannot pass the same proposal on the same arithmetic without changing the numbers. The Congress alleged that the government’s motive is to give it time to achieve the required number to pass the bill. Article 368 does not provide a special mechanism for automatically reviving a defeated constitutional amendment, and any fresh attempt would have to follow the applicable parliamentary procedure and secure the required majority in both Houses. The Bill if passed, could fundamentally alter the balance of parliamentary representation between states. PRS Legislative Research projections based on the 2011 Census and broadly maintaining the present size of the Lok Sabha indicate that Tamil Nadu could fall from 39 seats to 32 while Uttar Pradesh could rise from 80 to 89. That explains why several southern parties remain deeply concerned about the proposal. The numbers also explain the Opposition’s suspicion about recent political realignments. Six Shiv Sena (Uddhav) MPs have moved to the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde, while 20 TMC MPs have claimed to have broken away and sought to align themselves with the National Citizens Party of India and support the NDA. The six Shiv Sena MPs’ change has been recognised by the Lok Sabha Speaker, whereas the TMC split remains disputed and could face further legal scrutiny. Nor is there evidence at present that the government has induced particular MPs, promised them benefits or deliberately kept the session alive for this purpose. The delay in prorogation proves none of these allegations. The real test will come in the coming days. If the government reintroduces the defeated bill, schedules a special sitting or demonstrates that it has secured the additional numbers, the present suspicion will acquire greater substance. If the session is prorogued without such a move, the allegation will remain an unproven political interpretation. The larger democratic concern, however, goes beyond one bill. Constitutional changes affecting the federal balance should not depend on last-minute arithmetic, defections or disputed mergers. They require open debate, clear procedure and the broadest possible political agreement. Until the Lok Sabha is prorogued, speculation will continue; after that, the government’s intentions will become much easier to judge.