A nationwide group of 529 activists, retired civil servants, academics, lawyers and trade union leaders has urged the government to bring the Women’s Reservation Act into force during the monsoon session of parliament, sharpening pressure over a law passed nearly three years ago but still awaiting operational effect.
The appeal calls for immediate implementation of the Constitution Act, 2023, which provides for reservation of one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. The signatories argue that the quota can be applied within the present legislative framework and need not be kept hostage to the census and delimitation process.
The demand comes after a failed attempt in April to push through a related constitutional amendment and delimitation package that would have enabled the women’s quota to operate before the 2029 general election. That package, introduced in the Lok Sabha on April 16, was defeated the next day after opposition parties objected to its linkage with a broader redrawing of parliamentary constituencies and a proposed expansion of the Lok Sabha’s maximum strength from 550 to 850.
The 2023 law was celebrated across party lines when parliament cleared it with overwhelming support. Its operative clause, however, tied implementation to the first census after the law’s commencement and the delimitation exercise that follows. With the census reference date set for March 1, 2027, and delimitation historically taking years to complete, women’s reservation may not apply to the 2029 Lok Sabha election unless parliament changes the timeline or adopts an interim mechanism.
Women currently account for only about 14 per cent of the Lok Sabha, far below the 33 per cent threshold promised under the law. Seventy-four women were elected to the 18th Lok Sabha in 2024, down from 78 in the previous House. The figure also trails the global average of women’s representation in national parliaments, which stands at more than a quarter of seats.
The civic appeal seeks to reopen the issue before the monsoon session, framing it as a test of political will rather than a technical dispute. Its central argument is that a flat one-third reservation can be applied to existing seats, with rotation and identification of reserved constituencies handled through a transparent statutory process. The memorandum also rejects the view that a full-scale delimitation is a necessary precondition for giving effect to the Act.
The controversy has widened because delimitation is one of the most sensitive federal questions before parliament. The freeze on redistribution of Lok Sabha seats, based on the 1971 population figures, was extended until after the first census following 2026 to avoid penalising states that had performed better on population control. Southern states have warned that a population-based redistribution could reduce their relative influence, while more populous northern states could gain seats.
The April package sought to use 2011 census data for delimitation and alter the constitutional framework governing the timing and basis of future constituency redrawing. Critics said that approach would give parliament greater flexibility over when delimitation is carried out and which census is used, while also weakening safeguards around federal balance. The government defended the package as a way to accelerate women’s reservation before the next general election and to bring constituency sizes closer to population changes.
After the amendment failed to secure the required special majority, the accompanying delimitation legislation was set aside. The episode left the original 2023 law intact but still suspended in practical terms. It also split the debate into two tracks: one over women’s representation and another over the political consequences of changing the electoral map.
Women’s organisations have intensified mobilisation in several states, including Karnataka, where campaigners have argued that the delay undermines the purpose of the 2023 amendment. Their case rests on the long legislative history of the quota demand, which has been debated for decades before finally passing both Houses. They contend that further postponement would make the law symbolic rather than transformative.
