Women Reservation: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Central Government Over Delay in Women's Reservation Law Implementation

The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant notice to the Central Government concerning the delay in the implementation of the Women's Reservation Law. The matter came up for hearing on Monday before a bench comprising Justices B, while v. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, where the petitioner sought the immediate enforcement of the law, while as per the current provisions, the 33% women's reservation law can only be implemented after the completion of the census and subsequent delimitation process, neither of which has commenced yet. The petitioner has raised concerns about this uncertainty, as these processes have not even begun.

Petitioner's Core Demand and the Law's Predicament

The petitioner has directly urged the Supreme Court to implement the Women's Reservation Law. Their argument centers on the fact that while the government has provisioned 33% reservation for women, it has linked its implementation to a process whose commencement and conclusion are highly uncertain. This law, also known as the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. However, its effective date is tied to the completion of the census and the subsequent delimitation exercise. The petitioner contends that this condition undermines the very purpose of the law by indefinitely postponing its implementation, while this delay, they argue, deprives women of their constitutional right, which has been granted through legislation.

Arguments by Petitioner's Counsel and the Issue of Uncertainty

The petitioner's counsel presented their arguments before the Court, stating that while the government has made provisions for 33% women's reservation, it has linked it to a process with no definite timeline for its commencement or completion. They emphasized that the census process in the country has not yet begun, and the delimitation exercise is conducted based on census data, while Because of this, until the census is completed and delimitation follows, the law can't be enforced. The counsel argued that once a law has been enacted, such uncertain and unpredictable conditions shouldn't be attached to its implementation. They further stated that no logical basis has been provided for this delay, nor has the government clarified when these processes will begin or conclude, while this situation, they asserted, is effectively denying women their constitutional rights that have been enshrined in law.

Court's Observations and the Role of the Executive

During the hearing, Justice B. V. Nagarathna made a crucial observation. She stated that it's the responsibility of the government (the executive) to decide when to implement a particular law. The Court, she clarified, can only inquire when the government proposes to implement it. Justice Nagarathna also suggested that perhaps the government intends to base the implementation of. This law on scientific data, for which the census and delimitation might be deemed necessary. This remark underscores the principle of separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, where the Court generally refrains from direct interference in policy decisions but ensures accountability from the government.

Petitioner's Counter-Argument and the Significance of the Notice

Responding to Justice Nagarathna's comments, the petitioner's counsel countered that if the government had made a provision for 33% reservation, it should be presumed that they already possessed sufficient scientific data and grounds for this decision, while had there been a lack of data, perhaps the law itself wouldn't have been enacted. Following this argument, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government. This notice implies that the government must now present its stance on the matter and inform the Court about the timeline it intends to set for the implementation of the Women's Reservation Law, while this step will exert pressure on the government to expedite the implementation of this crucial legislation, and in the next hearing, the government will be required to present its plan and perspective on the matter. This case could have significant implications for women's empowerment and the dynamics of legislative processes in the country.