DMK MP moves private members bill for women's reservation in parliament independent of delimitation

Senior Advocate DMK Member of Parliament P Wilson on Saturday moved a private member’s Constitution Amendment Bill seeking immediate implementation of reservation for women in parliament and State assemblies without linking it to delimitation or a future census.

The bill proposes that the 33% women’s reservation be implemented within the existing strength of legislatures, including the current 543 seats in the Lok Sabha, and without any reallocation of constituencies. It also seeks to make the reservation permanent, instead of limiting it to a fixed duration.

In the statement of objects and reasons, Wilson strongly opposed the existing framework under the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, which links women’s reservation to a delimitation exercise after a future Census.

It states,

“This linkage has the effect of indefinitely postponing the implementation of women's reservation, thereby defeating the very objective of ensuring timely and meaningful political representation for women.”

The bill argues that there is no constitutional necessity to delay implementation and that reservation can be introduced immediately within the present composition of legislative bodies.

“If the Government is really serious about implementing women's reservations… there is no need to link it to delimitation or census. It can be implemented straightaway in the current strength of the House.”

It further argues,

“Such reservation shall be of a permanent character, forming an integral part of the constitutional framework, rather than being confined to a limited duration.”

The proposal further mandates that any future reallocation of seats must be approved by at least two-thirds of State Legislative Assemblies, in a bid to safeguard federal balance.

Wilson moved a notice under Rule 267 to suspend the day’s listed business in the Rajya Sabha to take up an urgent discussion on the issue. He had allegedly raised his notice when the Rajya Sabha convened, but the chairman declined to take it up.

Following the same, he addressed a press conference at 12:30 pm today.

The move comes a day after the Lok Sabha rejected the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which proposed expanding the strength of the House of the People from 550 to 850 members and enabling a nationwide delimitation exercise.

The bill failed to secure the required two-thirds majority, with 298 members voting in favour and 230 against. Following its rejection, the Union government withdrew the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

This legislative package was linked to the implementation of one-third reservation for women in parliament and State legislative assemblies, which was to take effect after the delimitation exercise was completed.

The opposition parties, while in support of the women's quota, had asked for its implementation independent of delimitation.

They alleged that the women's reservation law was tied up with delimitation as a ploy to push the passage of the latter law, so that the strength of the Lok Sabha from Hindi speaking States in the north India go up thereby giving an unfair advantage to the ruling BJP which has a stronger political foothold in the north.

Therefore, opposition parties voted against the delimitation bill.

DMK, one of the main opponents of the delimitation bill, has now sought women's reservation independent of the same.

Alongside the issue of women’s reservation, the bill proposed by Wilson also addresses concerns around delimitation. It proposes extending the existing freeze on reallocation of seats for another 25 years, citing persistent demographic disparities between States.

As per the bill,

“Any reallocation of seats based on post-2026 population data would lead to a disproportionate shift in political representation, effectively rewarding higher population growth and disadvantaging States that have fulfilled national commitments on population stabilisation.”

Referring to the rejection of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, he added,

“In a constitutional democracy, a proposal that has been expressly rejected by Parliament cannot be permitted to take effect indirectly or automatically by the mere efflux of time upon the expiry of the existing constitutional freeze in 2026.”