Signalling that the government’s Delimitation Amendment Bill and 33 per cent women’s reservation agenda were very much alive, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju today said the ruling dispensation had held consultations with a broad section of the Opposition on the issue, but the Congress had not given time for discussions.In a letter to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge today, Rijiju said the government had repeatedly reached out to the Congress on the matter.“The government has reached out to the Congress being the principal Opposition party on several occasions. I wrote to you on March 16, March 26 and April 12. I had also discussed the matter with you personally and sought your support and cooperation. During the monsoon session, I also met Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi personally for discussion and sought his cooperation on this subject. However, after repeated requests the Congress didn’t give dates for discussion after which the government’s outreach had extended to other political parties,” Rijiju said in his letter to Kharge.The minister said consultations had been held on the Delimitation Bill with the representatives of parties, including the DMK, SP, YSRCP, NCP, Shiv Sena (UBT), AIMIM and the BJD, with a view to facilitate dialogue and building a broader consensus in support of the proposed legislation.He said it was not clear why the demand for consultation is being made repeatedly, when the government had already made sustained efforts for dialogue.“What is now required is constructive cooperation from the Opposition parties, rather than a repetition of the same demand without due regard to the consultations already undertaken,” Rijiju said, hoping the Congress would not obstruct future legislation.Indicating that the delimitation agenda was very much alive, Rijiju said the government’s past efforts at engagement with the Opposition reflect its firm willingness to undertake consultation and constructive parliamentary engagement.“The government remains committed to the basic principles of parliamentary democracy and to facilitating meaningful dialogue through the effective functioning of Parliament. We value the participation of all political parties in deliberations and discussions on all matters of national importance. I also hope that the Congress will play a constructive role and will not obstruct important future legislations,” Rijiju added.On Kharge’s observation that Parliament had not been prorogued after being adjourned on August 13, Rijiju said this was not uncommon, adding, “I would like to clarify that there is no constitutional requirement prescribing a specific period within which a House must be prorogued following its adjournment sine die.”He said the mere fact that a House had not been prorogued during such an interval does not, by itself, give rise to any constitutional or procedural impropriety or irregularity.Rijiju listed past instances where Houses remained un-prorogued for long periods, extending up to 87 days.“In 2008, the Lok Sabha sat for two days, on July 21 and 22, for the confidence motion; the House was then kept un-prorogued, reconvened on October 17, 2008, and was adjourned on October 24 to meet again on December 10,” Rijiju said.Citing parliamentary records, Rijiju referred to similar instances in 1987 (76 days), 1989 (54 days), 2006 (49 days), 2013 (49 days) and 1963 (41 days).