DMK MP P Wilson introduces a private bill seeking 33% women’s reservation in Parliament and State Assemblies without waiting for delimitation or Census. The move challenges the current framework and demands immediate and permanent political representation for women.
Senior Advocate and P Wilson, who is also a Member of Parliament from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has introduced a Private Member’s Constitution Amendment Bill in the Rajya Sabha seeking immediate implementation of 33% reservation for women in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies.
The key demand in the Bill is that women’s reservation should be implemented right away, without waiting for any future delimitation exercise or Census. Wilson has strongly opposed the current legal framework under the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, which links the implementation of women’s reservation to delimitation after a future Census. According to him, this linkage creates unnecessary delay and defeats the purpose of ensuring timely representation for women.
ALSO READ: “No 30% Women Quota, No Elections”: MP High Court Stops Rewa Bar Polls
In the statement of objects and reasons, the Bill clearly 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 proposed legislation suggests that reservation for women can be introduced within the current strength of legislatures, including the existing 543 seats in the Lok Sabha, without any need to redraw constituencies. It argues that there is no constitutional requirement to delay implementation.
Emphasising this point, the Bill states,
“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.”
Another important feature of the proposal is that it seeks to make women’s reservation permanent, instead of limiting it to a fixed period as done in earlier constitutional provisions. It stresses that gender representation should be a continuous constitutional guarantee.
On this aspect, the Bill notes,
“Such reservation shall be of a permanent character, forming an integral part of the constitutional framework, rather than being confined to a limited duration.”
In addition to women’s reservation, the Bill also deals with the contentious issue of delimitation. It proposes extending the current freeze on reallocation of seats for another 25 years, citing continuing population differences among States.
The concern raised is that removing the freeze could unfairly benefit States with higher population growth while disadvantaging those that have successfully controlled population growth.
The Bill explains this concern by stating,
“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.”
Wilson also included a safeguard for federal balance by proposing that any future reallocation of seats must receive approval from at least two-thirds of State Legislative Assemblies.
On the procedural front, Wilson had moved a notice under Rule 267 in the Rajya Sabha seeking suspension of listed business to take up an urgent discussion on women’s reservation. However, the Chairman declined to allow the discussion. Following this, Wilson addressed a press conference to highlight the issue.
This move comes just a day after the Lok Sabha rejected the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which aimed to increase the strength of the House from 550 to 850 members and enable a nationwide delimitation exercise. The Bill failed to secure the required two-thirds majority, with 298 votes in favour and 230 against. After its rejection, the Union Government withdrew the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
The rejected legislative package was closely linked to the implementation of women’s reservation, as the quota was to be enforced only after delimitation. Opposition parties, while supporting women’s reservation in principle, opposed this linkage and demanded immediate implementation without waiting for delimitation.
They also raised concerns that delimitation could increase the number of seats in northern States, potentially giving a political advantage to parties with a stronger base in those regions.
ALSO READ: 30% Women’s Reservation Applies to Punjab and Haryana Bar Council Election: Supreme Court
Referring to the rejection of the Bill, Wilson stated,
“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.”
With this new Private Member’s Bill, the DMK has once again pushed for separating women’s reservation from delimitation, arguing that political representation for women should not be delayed due to larger structural changes in the electoral system.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Reservation
