Challenge a provision, propose an improvement, or ask a question. Every submission goes directly to a GitHub Issue where you can discuss with others.
Auto-translate on: Your title and details will be automatically translated to English before submission so proposals are maintained in a consistent language on GitHub.
Clicking "Submit" opens a pre-filled GitHub Issue in a new tab. You'll need a free GitHub account to post. This connects your feedback to the public record of this proposal.
GitHub Issue URL (preview)
—
Examples of useful feedback
Challenge
Performance-Weighted Formula violates Article 81
Article 81 requires constituency sizes to be "as nearly as may be equal." The 15% growth floor creates constituencies with meaningfully different population sizes — UP at 2.9M vs TN at 1.9M. This should require explicit constitutional amendment language overriding Article 81, not just relying on Articles 14 and 38.
Improvement
Whip prohibition needs constitutional backing, not just Rules of Procedure
The 8 federal subjects are protected by Rules of Procedure which can be reversed by a future Rajya Sabha majority. The Belgium model — where coalition parity is constitutionally mandated — suggests these protections need constitutional text to be durable. Suggest embedding at least the Finance Commission and President's Rule subjects directly in Article 118.
Question
What happens if a Revenue Zone has no eligible technocrat?
Article 74-A requires zone CMs to confirm the technocrat minister within 30 days. What if CMs don't confirm? What if there's a dispute about who qualifies as a "technocrat"? The fallback mechanism isn't specified.
Disclaimer
Not political advocacy. An independent thinking exercise by a curious citizen, assisted by AI — no party, institution, or agenda. Some proposals here are aspirational. All of them are meant to make you think and discuss.
About this project
What this is — and what it isn't
What it is: An independent thinking exercise by someone who is not a constitutional expert — just genuinely curious. The 131st Amendment failed in April 2026. That failure raised real questions about representation, federal equity, and democratic design. With AI assistance (Claude by Anthropic), this project challenged each issue from first principles — studying constitutional frameworks, international comparisons, and legal precedents — trying to find a middle ground that could work for most people, if not for all.
Honest about the gaps: Some proposals here are aspirational. A few may be difficult to implement, touch questions where reasonable people deeply disagree, or stretch into constitutional territory that doesn't yet exist. That's the point. Food for thought doesn't have to be immediately actionable — it has to be honest about the problem and genuinely different from the status quo. These are real gaps in India's democratic design, presented as real alternatives, not final answers. We know the gaps are there. We're not pretending otherwise.
What it isn't: This is not affiliated with any political party, government body, or institution. It is not a manifesto. It does not represent any community, region, ideology, or organisation. The author is not an expert. The numbers are indicative, not final. The proposal will have flaws — and the proposals platform exists precisely so people can point them out and propose something better.
Why it's public: India's delimitation problem is real. The 2027 census deadline is real. The stakes — for representation, federal balance, and national unity — are real. The goal here isn't to have all the answers. It's to make people think, question assumptions they've taken for granted, and propose better ideas. If this document makes one person reconsider something they assumed was fixed, or sparks a conversation that leads to a better solution, it has done its job.
What we ask: Read it critically. Challenge every assumption. Disagree loudly. Point out what AI missed, what the author misunderstood, and what a better proposal would look like. The platform accepts proposals — use it.
— A curious citizen. Not an expert. Definitely not done thinking.