Listen to this article:

For the past few days, the public narrative has suggested that the constitution amendment Bill, meant to operationalise women’s reservation, “failed” in parliament on April 17. This framing is, at best, incomplete. 

The constitutional basis for women’s reservation was already established through the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2023, which had received unanimous support from all political parties. What came before the Lok Sabha on April 17 this year was, however, a broader legislative package. 

Three separate bills were taken up together: Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, the Delimitation Bill, 2026, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill.

In effect, what was presented as a women’s reservation measure, in large part, was a delimitation-linked reform. The question, then, is not whether women’s reservation should exist – parliament has already agreed upon that – but if the implementation needs to be contingent on such a complex and politically sensitive exercise.

It is in this context that the political framing following the failure of the three Bills becomes significant. 

The contradiction is difficult to ignore. In his address to the nation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the outcome as a setback to women’s empowerment, suggesting that opposition resistance had stalled a historic reform. 

He apologised to women, stating that their aspirations had been “crushed”, while reiterating the government’s commitment to increasing women’s representation. This characterisation simplifies a more complex disagreement. Opposition parties have consistently maintained that they support women’s reservation, pointing to its earlier passage in 2023 and their backing of similar measures in the past. Their principal objection has been to the government’s decision to link its implementation to delimitation.

Women’s reservation has been presented by the ruling party as a moment of ‘Nari Shakti’; a historic step towards justice. But in practice, it has been wrapped in conditions so complex that its implementation now remains uncertain. The disagreement, therefore, is not about whether women should have greater representation, but whether that representation should be made dependent on a far-reaching restructuring of electoral boundaries.

Also read: A Fair Way of Going About Women’s Reservation in the Lok Sabha

This also raises a larger question: if women’s empowerment has been a stated priority of the BJP, and the law has already been enacted through the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, what explains the delay in its implementation within the existing parliamentary framework? Are the men in parliament afraid to lose their seats to women? 

The delay, in any case, is a consequence of how the law has been structured. By linking its implementation to a future Census and........

© The Wire