In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court rejected two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning the postponement of women’s reservation in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. These petitions had contested the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, focusing primarily on its delimitation clause. However, the Court concluded that there was no breach of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution, making it clear that such matters do not warrant the invocation of Article 32.
The first PIL, filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, claimed that the delay in implementing the women’s reservation law was unjustified. Thakur argued that the Act, passed with overwhelming support in a special parliamentary session and signed into law by President Droupadi Murmu in September 2023, should not be held back by procedural requirements like conducting a new census and delimitation exercise. According to her, these conditions were unnecessary roadblocks, and the law should have been implemented immediately.
However, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale dismissed her plea, calling it “infructuous.” The Court pointed out that the petitioner was essentially challenging a bill that had already become law. Earlier, during the hearings, the bench had also expressed reluctance to compel the Union Government to enforce the legislation before the 2024 general elections, considering the legal prerequisites outlined in the Act.
The second PIL, filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) and represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, questioned the constitutional validity of the delimitation clause itself. This clause makes the implementation of women’s reservation contingent upon the completion of a fresh census and delimitation process. The NFIW argued that this condition was unwarranted and unfairly delayed the benefits of the reservation.
The Supreme Court, however, was not inclined to entertain this argument. Justice Bela M. Trivedi stated that if the petitioner wished to challenge the constitutionality of the clause, the matter could be taken to the High Court. The bench emphasized that the delimitation clause did not violate Article 14, thereby rejecting the claim of fundamental rights infringement.
This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the importance of adhering to legislative and constitutional processes, even for reforms as significant as women’s reservation. While the intent of the law is widely supported, the Court highlighted the necessity of following procedural requirements like the census and delimitation to ensure proper implementation.
The cases—Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 1181/2023) and National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 41/2024)—serve as reminders of the balance that must be maintained between legislative intent and procedural mandates.
