‘Women Are India’s Largest Minority’: Supreme Court Questions Delay in Implementing Women’s Reservation
Supreme Court questions Centre over delay in implementing Women’s Reservation Act, calling women the “largest minority.”
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the government over the delay in implementing the Women’s Reservation Act, describing women as the “largest minority” in India whose representation in Parliament continues to decline. Heading a two-judge Bench, Justice B.V. Nagarathna—the Supreme Court’s only woman judge—posed a pointed question to the Centre: “Why not give women representation even without reservation?” The bench, also comprising Justice R. Mahadevan, issued a notice to the Union government, seeking a response on why the constitutional amendment remains tied to future exercises with uncertain timelines.
The petition, filed by Congress leader Dr Jaya Thakur, challenges the conditional enforcement of the Women’s Reservation Act, 2023, which guarantees 33 percent representation for women in Parliament and State Assemblies but only after the next census and delimitation are completed. Both exercises, however, have not yet been initiated, leaving implementation indefinitely postponed. The plea argues that such dependence on future administrative events undermines the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna observed that women, who form nearly 48 percent of India’s population, continue to be marginal participants in lawmaking spaces. In the current Lok Sabha, women occupy only about 14 percent of seats, and the numbers are even lower across several state legislatures. “The Preamble says all citizens are entitled to political and social equality,” Justice Nagarathna said. “Who is the largest minority in this country? It is the woman.” Her remarks struck at the heart of India’s long-standing debate over gender and representation.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds NSA Detention of Radical MP Amritpal Singh
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the petitioner, contended that linking women’s political equality to an uncertain bureaucratic process renders the law ineffective. “Why should women wait for a future event that has no defined timeline?” she asked, emphasizing that the constitutional promise of equality cannot remain suspended because of administrative indecision. She termed the delay “unfortunate,” noting that more than seven decades after independence, women are still waiting for their fair share in governance.
Justice Nagarathna acknowledged that while the judiciary can seek explanations, the actual enforcement of the Act lies within the executive’s purview. “At best, we can ask when they are proposing to carry out these exercises,” she remarked, while indicating that the court would examine the logic behind the delay. The bench has now directed the Centre to file a detailed response. For now, the landmark promise of women’s one-third representation remains stalled between constitutional vision and procedural uncertainty.
Also Read: “Stone Pelting in J&K Not an Ordinary Act,” Rules Supreme Court
