The Supreme Court today dismissed petitions challenging the Constitutional Amendment granting one-third reservation to women on the ground that the implementation of the Amendment had been unjustly deferred due to it being conditional on the publication of figures of the census and the delimitation of constituencies being undertaken.

The Court was hearing a batch of two Public Interest Litigation petitions; one by Indian National Congress member Dr. Jaya Thakur and the other by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), a women's organisation affiliated with the Communist Party of India.

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed Dr. Jaya Thakur's petition on the ground that the petition had only challenged the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023 and not the Act, which the Bill subsequently became. "The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Writ Petition has become infructuous. It is dismissed as having become infructuous", the Court ordered.

The Court dismissed NFIW's petition stating, "We are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that the Petitioner may file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under law."

The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 was passed in September 2023 by the Parliament. The legislation provides for the allocation of 33 per cent of the elected seats in the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies and the Delhi legislative assembly.

The Amendment, which adds Article 334A to the Constitution, specifies that the provision on reservation of seats for women shall come into effect "after an exercise of delimitation is undertaken for this purpose after the relevant figures for the first census taken after commencement of the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 have been published and shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of fifteen years from such commencement."

Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for Dr. Jaya Thakur, and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NFIW, submitted that the exercise of delimitation had no relation to the reservation of seats for women and hence, the allocation of seats for women should not be conditional on the same. Bhushan also submitted that the condition violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Advocate Kanu Agarwal appeared for the Centre and submitted that the constitutional amendment can only be challenged on the ground of violation of basic structure.

Dr. Thakur's petition states that a Constitutional Amendment cannot be held in abeyance for an uncertain period of time and calls for the immediate implementation of the reservation provision noting the low representation of women in Parliament and state assemblies.

"We are saying that this is totally arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 because this delimitation has nothing to do with reservation, neither delimitation nor census." Bhushan told the Bench.

However, the Bench was not inclined to hear the matter at any length. "You may move the High Court or anywhere you want to," Justice Trivedi told the Petitioners.

Cause Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 1181/2023]

Justice Bela M TrivediJustice Prasanna B. Varale

Tushar Kohli