New Delhi, November 10, 2025: The Supreme Court of India on Monday sought a response from the government regarding a petition challenging the delay in implementing the constitutional amendment providing 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. While emphasizing that the enforcement of a law falls within the domain of Parliament and the executive, the bench underlined the importance of clarity on timelines for the pending delimitation exercise, which has delayed the quota’s activation.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan issued a notice to the government on the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, which contends that the postponement undermines women’s representation in legislatures. The court clarified that while it cannot directly mandate Parliament or the executive to enforce the law, it could seek information on when the delimitation exercise—necessary for implementation—would be undertaken.

“Enforcement of a law is in the domain of the Parliament and the executive. We cannot issue a mandamus in that regard. But we can ask them to tell this court when they propose to have it [delimitation],” the bench observed.

Background of the Women’s Reservation Law

The 33% women’s reservation amendment, passed in September 2023, was intended to ensure that one-third of the seats in both Parliament and state assemblies are reserved for women candidates on a rotational basis. However, its implementation has been postponed until the completion of a delimitation exercise based on census data following the law’s enactment.

Jaya Thakur, through her petition filed in May 2025, argued that the quota can be implemented even without waiting for delimitation, similar to how local body elections have implemented women’s reservation without such a delay. She stressed that women constitute the largest minority in the country, accounting for 48.4% of the population, yet their representation in Parliament remains dismally low—less than 10% in practice. Presently, there are 75 women lawmakers in the 543-member Lok Sabha and 42 in the 250-member Rajya Sabha, highlighting the urgent need to accelerate the implementation of the quota.

Key Arguments in the Petition

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Thakur, argued that the law clearly mandates that one-third of seats must be reserved and assigned through rotation. She questioned the rationale behind delaying a provision that has already taken decades to pass, noting that the first women’s reservation bill was introduced in Parliament in 1987. Gupta emphasized that there is no legal or procedural necessity to link the implementation of women’s reservation to a census-based delimitation exercise.

“The law says one-third of seats are to be reserved and provided by rotation. Why delay something that has already taken so long?” Gupta contended.

The petitioner further highlighted that the delay in implementing women’s reservation is inconsistent with prior practices. Reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Parliament and state legislatures have been extended without waiting for census or delimitation exercises, whereas women’s representation is being made contingent on scientific data. Thakur’s plea argues that this conditionality defeats the very purpose of empowering women politically and ensuring their meaningful participation in governance.

Supreme Court Observations

During the hearing, the bench termed the constitutional amendment for the women’s quota “an instance of political justice for women”, emphasizing that the law reflects a commitment to equitable representation. The court noted that while the government may wish to identify specific constituencies for reservation and rely on updated demographic data, the indefinite delay in the delimitation exercise raises questions about the feasibility of timely implementation.

The bench also recognized the petitioner’s concern regarding the lack of any visible timeline for the delimitation exercise even two years after the amendment was passed. “This is a conditional amendment. It will only come into effect after delimitation is undertaken. But when does delimitation happen? And suppose they do not commence this exercise,” the court observed, underlining the uncertainty faced by women who could benefit from the law.

The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition to the government and did not immediately fix a date for further proceedings. The court’s approach signals its willingness to examine the issue while respecting the constitutional division of powers, leaving the final implementation to Parliament and the executive.

Implications for Women’s Political Representation

The delay in implementing the 33% quota has significant implications for women’s political representation in India. Women remain grossly underrepresented in legislative bodies, and the prolonged postponement of the law’s activation continues to limit their participation in the democratic process. Experts argue that meaningful inclusion of women in politics is essential not only for achieving gender parity but also for ensuring that governance reflects the diverse perspectives and priorities of half the population.

In local body elections, India has successfully implemented women’s reservation without any linkage to census or delimitation, demonstrating that practical frameworks exist to operationalize such quotas. The PIL stresses that a similar approach could be adopted at the national and state levels to ensure timely fulfillment of the 2023 amendment.

Political and Legal Context

The women’s reservation amendment was hailed as a landmark step toward political equality and social justice when it was passed in 2023. However, political analysts note that the delay in implementation may stem from the complexities involved in delimitation, which aims to redefine constituency boundaries based on demographic changes. While delimitation ensures fairness in allocation, critics argue that tying women’s reservation to it has unnecessarily postponed a progressive reform.

By seeking a government response, the Supreme Court aims to clarify the timeline and procedural plans for delimitation while reiterating that the decision to enforce the law ultimately rests with Parliament and the executive. This step also reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles without overstepping its mandate.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s notice to the government marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate over women’s political empowerment in India. With nearly half the population being women and representation in Parliament and state assemblies remaining far below the desired threshold, the implementation of the 33% quota is seen as a vital step toward achieving gender equality in governance.

As the government prepares to respond to the PIL, the nation awaits clarity on the timeline for the delimitation exercise and the subsequent enforcement of the women’s reservation law. The court’s observations underscore the tension between procedural requirements and the urgent need for inclusive representation, highlighting the broader challenge of ensuring that legislative reforms translate into tangible social and political change.

---