When Parliament passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act in September 2023 — commonly called the Women’s Reservation Act — it was celebrated across party lines as a historic achievement. The legislation mandated reservation of one-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for women. After nearly three decades of repeated failures — the original bill was first introduced in 1996 and blocked repeatedly — the passage of the Act was seen as a moment of reckoning for Indian democracy.
However, as a detailed analysis by former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi published in The Hindu makes clear, the Act contains a fatal qualification that renders its implementation constitutionally impossible before the 2029 general elections. The reservation, as written in the law, will come into effect only “after the first Census taken after the year 2026” and the subsequent delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies. This condition creates an ironclad legal barrier — a barrier that was not accidental but, as many observers argue, was deliberately constructed to absorb the political cost of the reform while deferring its actual consequences.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
Table of Contents
Five Important Key Points
- The Women’s Reservation Act requires two sequential pre-conditions — a post-2026 Census and a subsequent delimitation — before seats can be reserved, making implementation before 2029 constitutionally impossible.
- The next Census is scheduled for 2027 and will take at least 12-18 months to publish officially, meaning delimitation cannot begin before 2029 at the earliest.
- The Delimitation Commission, once constituted, must redraw 543 Lok Sabha constituencies and over 4,000 State Assembly constituencies — a task no previous Commission completed in under three years.
- The linkage of women’s reservation to delimitation has entangled gender justice with the contentious north-south seat distribution debate, as northern states with higher population growth expect significantly more seats after delimitation.
- Parliament can legally delink reservation from delimitation through a fresh constitutional amendment, enabling immediate implementation either within the current 543-seat Lok Sabha or through a modest expansion of the House.
Constitutional Background: Article 15(3) and the Power of Special Provisions
The Indian Constitution contains several provisions that establish the framework within which women’s reservation must be understood. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 15(3) carves out a specific exception: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.” This provision has been the constitutional anchor for women-specific legislation across a wide range of domains — from the Maternity Benefit Act to reservation in local bodies.
Article 243D mandates reservation of not less than one-third of total seats in Panchayati Raj institutions for women, a provision that has been implemented effectively since the 73rd Constitutional Amendment of 1992 and has resulted in over 1.4 million elected women representatives at the grassroots level. The success of women’s reservation in local bodies demonstrates that the constitutional architecture supports such measures and that they can produce meaningful representation when implemented without excessive pre-conditions.
The 106th Amendment, however, imposes pre-conditions that have no constitutional necessity. There is no provision in the Constitution that mandates that reservations for women in Parliament must await delimitation. The Act created this linkage legislatively, which means that Parliament, by a fresh amendment, can remove it. The question is one of political will, not constitutional permissibility.
The Delimitation Problem: North vs. South
The central reason why the Women’s Reservation Act was tied to delimitation is that delimitation itself is one of the most explosive and unresolved political issues in contemporary Indian federalism. Parliamentary seat allocation was last adjusted in 1976 and was then frozen by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) until the first Census after 2000, then extended further to the first Census after 2026 — meaning that southern states which invested heavily in population control through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s have not lost seats despite having much lower population growth than northern states. Post-delimitation, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are expected to gain substantially more seats, while Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh fear losing relative representation.
This tension is constitutionally significant. The Constitution under Article 81 determines the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states broadly on the basis of population. When the freeze is lifted, the reallocation could fundamentally alter the balance of political power between north and south India, creating powerful incentives for southern parties to delay delimitation indefinitely. By linking women’s reservation to delimitation, Parliament has effectively made the two issues hostage to each other — neither can proceed without the other, and both face massive political resistance.
What Has Changed Since 1996? The Thirty-Year Wait
The first Women’s Reservation Bill was introduced by the HD Deve Gowda government in 1996. It was subsequently reintroduced by the Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and other governments. The bill passed the Rajya Sabha in 2010 with strong cross-party support but never came to a vote in the Lok Sabha. The primary obstacles were threefold. First, many male politicians — including from parties that formally supported the bill — feared displacement. Second, there were demands for sub-quotas within the women’s quota for OBC women, which the Congress-led government refused to incorporate, fearing it would create a Mandal-like political disruption. Third, the opposition of small parties that relied on personal influence and caste networks, rather than programmatic politics, was decisive in blocking the bill through disruptions.
The 2023 Act resolved the deadlock by the simple — and politically shrewd — device of deferring implementation. All parties could vote in favour because no one would actually lose a seat in the near future. The political cost was absorbed by making the reform contingent on a future event (delimitation) that was itself deeply contentious.
The OBC Gap and Other Design Flaws
The Act, even as written, has significant design gaps that go beyond the implementation timeline. It does not extend reservation to the Rajya Sabha or State Legislative Councils, limiting the reform to directly elected lower houses. This means that a substantial proportion of Parliament will continue to be elected without any gender reservation requirement.
More significantly, the Act provides no sub-reservation for Other Backward Class (OBC) women, though Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe women receive proportional sub-quotas within the reserved constituencies. OBC women constitute approximately 40% of India’s female population and face compounded disadvantages of gender and caste. The absence of OBC sub-reservation means that the women who benefit most from the Act are likely to be from upper castes and dominant castes who already have better access to political resources.
Additionally, the Act mandates rotation of reserved constituencies after each general election — meaning a woman who wins a reserved seat may not be able to contest the same constituency in the next election. The operational mechanics of rotation in a context where delimitation is also reshuffling boundaries have not been specified, creating potential for legal challenges and electoral uncertainty.
The Way Forward: Delinking and Incremental Expansion
There are practical solutions available if political will exists. The most straightforward is a constitutional amendment to remove the Census-delimitation pre-condition, allowing reservation to be implemented within the existing 543-seat Lok Sabha immediately. This would displace 181 male incumbents and create powerful resistance, but it is legally and constitutionally the cleanest solution.
An alternative proposed by constitutional scholars is incremental expansion of the Lok Sabha — adding approximately 180 seats earmarked exclusively for women — before full delimitation concludes. This approach avoids displacing male incumbents while delivering meaningful representation. The Constitution under Article 81 does not set a ceiling on the number of Lok Sabha seats (it currently sets a maximum of 550), and so expansion to around 730 seats exclusively for women could be achieved without disturbing existing male-held constituencies.
A third option is applying reservation within current constituencies for two election cycles, treating the 2029 and 2034 elections as transitional phases. After delimitation, the permanent system would come into force. Each of these approaches requires a constitutional amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority in both Houses and ratification by at least half the states.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
This topic is directly relevant to UPSC Mains GS Paper II on Indian Constitution, Parliament, and political representation. Questions can be expected on the constitutional basis of women’s reservation, the history of the Women’s Reservation Bill, the relationship between delimitation and representation, and the north-south seat distribution debate. For Essay paper, the theme of “representation delayed is representation denied” offers rich possibilities. UPSC Prelims questions may focus on the Article numbers relevant to women’s reservation (15(3), 243D), the year the Act was passed, and the pre-conditions for implementation. SSC candidates need awareness of what the Women’s Reservation Act is, why it cannot be implemented before 2029, and what delimitation means.