Author: Akanksha Singh, Asian Law College, Noida
Headline of the Article
Women’s Reservation Bill: Legal and Political Dimensions
To the Point:
The Women’s Reservation Bill, officially the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, seeks to reserve 33% of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. While long awaited, its implementation is deferred until after the next delimitation exercise, expected post-2026 census. This raises both hope for gender parity and questions about political intent and constitutional delay.
Use of Legal Jargon:
Reservation – A form of affirmative action under Articles 15(3) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Delimitation – Redrawing of electoral boundaries under the Delimitation Commission Act.
Constitutional Amendment – Change in constitutional provisions under Article 368.
Substantive Equality – Equality that takes into account structural disadvantages, supported by courts.
Affirmative Action – Policies to uplift disadvantaged groups in public institutions.
The Proof:
Low Representation: Only 15% of MPs in Lok Sabha and <10% in many State Assemblies are women.
Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023: Inserts Articles 330A and 332A, mandating 33% reservation
Panchayati Raj Precedent: 33% reservation already exists in rural and urban local bodies since the 73rd and 74th Amendments.
Implementation Clause: The law will apply only after the next census and subsequent delimitation, meaning the 2024 elections won’t be affected.
Abstract:
The passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill marks a historic legal reform in India’s democratic evolution. The Bill provides 33% reservation for women in the Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, yet delays its implementation until the next delimitation exercise, sparking debates about its immediacy and inclusiveness. This article explores the legal foundation, political implications, relevant constitutional provisions, and landmark judicial perspectives on reservation for women. While symbolically powerful, the Bill’s true test lies in its timely and effective execution.
Case Laws:
1. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld the constitutional validity of reservations and laid limits on their extent.
2. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) – Reinforced the legitimacy of reservation for equitable access to governance.
3. Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) – Validated reservations in Panchayati Raj institutions.
4. Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) – Affirmed state authority in defining reservation for democratic representation.
Conclusion:
The Women’s Reservation Bill is a progressive step toward ensuring gender justice in India’s political system. However, its delayed implementation, lack of sub-reservation for OBC women, and absence from the immediate electoral roadmap make its impact uncertain. While the legal framework now exists, its execution depends heavily on political will, administrative readiness, and civil society pressure. Mere legislation is not enough — empowerment must be practiced, not promised.
FAQs:
Q1. What does the Women’s Reservation Bill propose?
A: It reserves 33% seats for women in the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies.
Q2. Is it applicable in the 2024 elections?
A: No, it will be implemented after the next census and delimitation (expected post-2026).
Q3. Does it include reservation for OBC or minority women?
A: No, it provides a general 33% reservation for women, with no sub-categorisation.
Q4. Is women’s reservation already implemented elsewhere in India?
A: Yes, in Panchayats and Municipalities, 33% reservation is already in place under the 73rd and 74th Amendments.
Q5. Can the Bill be challenged in court?
A: Since it’s a constitutional amendment under Article 368, it’s unlikely to be struck down unless it violates the basic structure doctrine.