Bhubaneswar: Biju Janata Dal (BJD) president and Leader of Opposition Naveen Patnaik on Thursday cautioned about potential risks of the proposed Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, to the state’s long-term political representation and economic future if passed without safeguards.
In the letter to all MPs of the state, Patnaik urged them to raise their voices both inside and outside Parliament to protect Odisha’s rightful place in the Union. He stressed that the bill, which seeks to operationalise 33% women’s reservation in Parliament and state assemblies by linking it to a fresh delimitation exercise and expanding the Lok Sabha’s strength, must not come at the cost of states like Odisha that have excelled in population control and human development.
Naveen began by reaffirming his and the BJD’s unwavering support for women’s empowerment. “We wholeheartedly support the principle of women’s empowerment and greater representation of women in legislative bodies,” he wrote, recalling how his father, late Biju Patnaik, pioneered women’s reservation in Panchayati Raj Institutions and how he himself took it forward.
The BJD had fully backed the 106th Constitutional Amendment Bill (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) in 2023.
However, he drew a clear line on the current proposal. “The current 131st Constitutional Amendment Bill, as proposed, raises serious concerns that go beyond its stated objective,” he stated, highlighting three key dimensions:
1. Political Implications
The former CM warned that any delimitation altering the federal balance would marginalise Odisha. “A relative reduction in Odisha’s voice in the Lok Sabha would weaken our ability to advocate for state-specific needs, from disaster management to tribal welfare and regional development.” He pointed out that Odisha’s current share of 21 Lok Sabha seats (3.9% of 543) would drop to approximately 3.4% even if absolute numbers rise to 29 seats in an expanded House. “A 0.5% share loss is a huge loss given our minuscule 3.9% representation today,” he noted. “It steals the political representation future of people of Odisha.”
2. Emotional and Cultural Dimensions
Representation, he emphasised, is tied to Odisha’s identity and pride. “For the people of Odisha, representation in Parliament is not just about numbers, it is about identity, pride, and the assurance that our unique history, language, and aspirations are heard at the highest levels.” Diminishing this presence could create a sense of degradation, he cautioned.
3. Economic Concerns
Naveen argued that states with successful population control are being penalised. A skew towards more populous states could reduce Odisha’s share in central resources, fiscal transfers, and infrastructure. “Odisha has been a large contributor to the revenue of the Government and yet has always received discriminatory treatment including the denial of a special status,” he wrote.
He appealed to the MPs, irrespective of party affiliation, to seek clarity, safeguards, or a decoupling of women’s reservation from the delimitation process. “We should only support the Amendment if Odisha’s share of representations is in no way reduced or compromised,” he said.
He warned that the BJD is prepared to take the issue directly to the people of Odisha if the state’s concerns are ignored.
This communication to the MPs comes a day after Naveen wrote a similar letter to Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi on April 15, demanding an urgent special session of the Odisha Legislative Assembly within 48 hours to pass a resolution safeguarding the state’s political rights. In that missive, he had described the bill as striking at the heart of cooperative federalism and declared, “We will welcome the Delimitation Bill only if Odisha’s political rights remain intact.”
The 131st Amendment Bill, along with a companion Delimitation Bill, is part of the Centre’s package to implement the long-pending women’s reservation by increasing Lok Sabha seats (reportedly to around 816–850) based on the next Census. While several opposition parties have voiced support for the women’s quota in principle, they have opposed its linkage to delimitation, fearing it would disproportionately benefit populous states.
