New Delhi – India | September 24, 2025
Supreme Court Set to Hear Petitions Challenging Women’s Reservation Law Implementation
In a move that has reignited the national debate over gender representation in Indian politics, the Supreme Court of India has announced it will hear a batch of petitions challenging the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, also known as the Women’s Reservation Act. The landmark legislation, which reserves one-third of the seats for women in the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and the Delhi legislative assembly, has been a source of contention due to its implementation timeline.
Headline Points
* The Supreme Court will hear petitions challenging the implementation timeline of the Women’s Reservation Act.
* The Act, passed in September 2023, links its implementation to a new national census and a subsequent delimitation exercise.
* Petitioners argue this provision is a violation of the right to equality (Article 14) and an indefinite delay, while the government maintains these steps are constitutionally necessary.
* The court had previously dismissed petitions on this matter in January 2025, deeming them “infructuous” as the bill had become law. However, new petitions have been filed seeking an expedited implementation.
* The outcome of this hearing could significantly impact the political landscape of India, potentially paving the way for the reservation to be applied before the next general elections.
The Core of the Petitioners’ Argument
The primary challenge raised by the petitioners focuses on the delaying clause within the Act. While the legislation was passed with near-unanimous support in Parliament, its provisions stipulate that the reservation will only come into effect after the next census is conducted and a subsequent delimitation (redrawing of constituency boundaries) exercise is completed. Petitioners argue that this makes the law a “farce” and an “offence” against the right to equality.
Prominent legal figures representing the petitioners have contended that linking the implementation to an uncertain future event, such as the next census, essentially renders the law non-functional for an indefinite period. They argue that a constitutional amendment, which is a powerful and definitive legislative tool, should not be subject to such a prolonged and unspecified delay. This contrasts with the government’s position that a fresh census and delimitation are essential to ensure a fair and proportionate allocation of reserved seats.
Legal and Political Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these petitions again signals a recognition of the significant legal and constitutional questions at play. While the court previously dismissed similar pleas, the new petitions are framed around the continued delay and the specific constitutional validity of the implementation clause. The outcome could set a precedent for how future constitutional amendments are implemented and the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in matters of legislative timelines.
For women’s rights advocates and political leaders, the hearing is a crucial moment. Proponents of the Act have long argued that reserving seats is a necessary step to address the abysmal underrepresentation of women in national and state legislatures. Currently, the percentage of women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies remains low compared to global averages. The success of these petitions would force the government to fast-track the implementation, potentially transforming the political landscape by increasing female participation in governance in time for the 2029 elections.
