SC notice to Centre on plea to implement women's reservation in Parliament

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Central government on a plea filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, seeking the implementation of a law for 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan asked the government to respond to the PIL seeking the implementation of the women's reservation law without waiting for the conduct of a fresh delimitation exercise.

The bench, during the hearing, observed, "Preamble (to the Constitution of India) says (all citizens are entitled to) political and social equality. Who is the largest minority in this country? It is the woman... almost 48 per cent. This is about the political equality of women."

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Thakur, stated that after 75 years of India's independence, it is unfortunate that women still have to approach the court for representation.

Hearing the counsel, the bench said, "When is the delimitation exercise there? Serve it to the government... Enforcement of the law is the executive's responsibility, and we cannot issue a mandamus. Issue notice to respondents. Let the central agency be served."

The plea sought the striking down of a specific provision that made the conduct of the census and subsequent delimitation a prerequisite for implementing the reservation, as they argued for its immediate roll-out.

The 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam' received the President's assent on September 28, 2023, following a special session of Parliament that was convened to pass the law.

Thakur, who is the general secretary of Madhya Pradesh women's wing of the Congress, sought implementation of the women's reservation law, which mandates one-third of all seats to be reserved for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.

Initially, she filed the plea in 2023, urging the implementation of women's reservations in parliament ahead of the 2024 general elections. However, it was the apex court that then refused to entertain the petition.