KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL — Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has strongly criticised the opposition following the rejection of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha, calling the development a “black day for reformist ideas in India.”
Speaking in Kolkata, Fadnavis said that the bill aimed to ensure greater participation of women in India’s democratic framework, and accused opposition parties of coming together to block its passage. He named parties including Congress, TMC, Samajwadi Party, factions led by Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar, and the DMK, alleging that they collectively prevented the bill from securing the required support.
He explained that the legislation was a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha, and while a significant number of MPs supported it, the threshold could not be met. According to Fadnavis, 298 votes were cast in favour of the bill, while 230 were against, ultimately leading to its failure.
Fadnavis подчеркнул that the bill represented a major step toward granting 33 percent reservation for women in Parliament and state assemblies, and its rejection has delayed a long-awaited reform aimed at enhancing women’s representation in governance.
Accusing the opposition of undermining women’s rights, he said that their actions have exposed what he described as an anti-women stance, arguing that political considerations were placed above the interests of women’s empowerment.
In a sharp and politically charged remark, Fadnavis said that opposition leaders should “celebrate” the outcome, suggesting that they have effectively blocked a measure that could have strengthened women’s participation in politics. He specifically referred to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in his criticism.
He further alleged that the opposition’s stance has pushed the country backward, claiming that rejecting such a reform risks reinforcing a male-dominated political structure rather than promoting inclusivity.
The Chief Minister’s comments come amid intense political exchanges following the bill’s failure, with both the ruling alliance and opposition accusing each other of obstructing progress on women’s reservation.
While the government has maintained that the bill was a historic initiative, opposition parties have argued that its linkage with delimitation and other procedural aspects complicated the process and prevented consensus.
Political analysts note that the issue has now become a central point of debate, with both sides attempting to shape the narrative around women’s empowerment and legislative intent.
Devendra Fadnavis’s remarks underscore the deep political divide over the Women’s Reservation Bill, highlighting contrasting perspectives on its failure and its implications for gender representation in India’s democratic institutions.
