A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan has directed the Central government to file its response to a petition that challenges the linkage of the Women's Reservation Act to a future Census and delimitation process. The petition, titled Yogamaya MG v. Union of India, was filed by advocate Yogamaya MG and argued before the Court by senior advocate NS Nappinai.
The plea contends that the Constitution (128th Amendment) Act, 2023, which reserves one‑third of seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for women, remains ineffective because its commencement is conditioned upon the first Census conducted after the Act's enforcement and the subsequent delimitation exercise. The petitioners argue that waiting for a post‑2026 Census and the ensuing delimitation could deny women the benefit of reservation even in the 2029 general elections.
According to the petition, women presently constitute approximately 13.6 per cent of the Lok Sabha and around 14 per cent of the Rajya Sabha, figures that place India below the global average for female parliamentary representation. The plea asserts that formal equality has not resulted in substantive political empowerment due to entrenched patriarchal norms, economic dependence, limited access to political resources and discrimination.
The petition further observes that many women who enter legislatures do so through political lineage, family connections, party patronage or celebrity status rather than through independent grassroots mobilisation. It maintains that the reservation mechanism should be understood as a corrective instrument capable of facilitating the entry of grassroots women leaders into legislative bodies and enabling their meaningful participation in law‑making.
To substantiate this position, the petition cites research indicating that women legislators tend to outperform their male counterparts in less‑developed constituencies, are more effective in delivering infrastructure projects, face fewer criminal charges and are less likely to misuse public office for personal gain.
The plea requests the Court to direct the Union government to implement the Women's Reservation Act on the basis of the 2001 or 2011 Census data, utilizing the framework provided by the Delimitation Act, 2002, instead of awaiting a future Census and delimitation exercise. It argues that such an approach would give effect to the constitutional guarantee of equality and ensure women's representation in the forthcoming electoral cycle.
The Bench noted the recent legislative developments that have clouded the delimitation timetable. Parliament's rejection of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which sought to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha and facilitate a nationwide delimitation, was followed by the withdrawal of the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 by the Centre. Consequently, the timeline for delimitation remains uncertain.
By issuing notice, the Supreme Court has sought the Centre's stance on whether the Women's Reservation Act can be made operative without waiting for a fresh delimitation. The Court's order does not prejudge the merits of the plea but requires the government to explain its position on the feasibility and legality of implementing the reservation based on earlier Census data.
The matter is now pending before the Court, awaiting the Union government's response. The outcome will determine whether the reservation for women in legislatures will be realised ahead of the 2029 Lok Sabha elections or remain contingent upon a future delimitation process.