Critics and cautious observers argue that imposing a December deadline on complex constitutional and legal matters may be unrealistic and potentially counterproductive. The issues surrounding MA63 are deeply embedded in federal law, administrative policy, and, in some cases, require two-thirds parliamentary majorities to amend the Constitution. Skeptics suggest that rushing these negotiations to meet an arbitrary calendar date could lead to superficial solutions or incomplete agreements that fail to address the underlying legal complexities, ultimately creating more problems than they solve.
There is also a concern that setting a public deadline creates unnecessary political pressure that could strain the delicate consensus-building process. Negotiators are dealing with sensitive topics like electoral redelineation and the devolution of powers, which involve multiple stakeholders, including the Election Commission and various federal ministries. If these agencies are forced to rush, there is a risk that the quality of the policy outcomes will suffer, or that the resulting agreements will be legally vulnerable. Critics emphasize that the focus should remain on the quality and sustainability of the solutions rather than the speed of their implementation.
Furthermore, some argue that the "negotiation" framework itself is inherently flawed if the goal is to fully restore rights that were already guaranteed in 1963. From this perspective, the focus on a deadline distracts from the fact that many of these rights should have been respected all along. There is a fear that by accepting a deadline-driven process, the states might be forced to compromise on their core demands just to satisfy a political timeline. For these observers, a more patient, thorough, and transparent approach is preferable to ensure that the final resolutions are robust, legally sound, and truly representative of the spirit of the original agreement.