The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Central government in response to a petition challenging the validity of Article 334A of the Constitution.

This article stipulates that the reservation for women in Parliament and State Assemblies, as per the 2023 women’s reservation law, will only come into effect after a delimitation exercise.

Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing electoral boundaries based on the population figures from a census.

A bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Central government and Attorney General R Venkataramani to respond to the petition, which questions the delay in implementing women’s reservation until the delimitation process is completed.

The petition challenges the provision of Article 334A, arguing that the reservation for women should not be contingent on this process. "Since the vires of Article 334A are being questioned, notice should also be issued to the Attorney General," the Court stated.

The women’s reservation law was introduced through a series of constitutional amendments culminating in the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, which reserves one-third of the seats in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies for women. However, as per Article 334A, this reservation will be implemented only after the completion of a delimitation exercise, based on population data from the first census conducted after the law’s enactment.

Though the Act received presidential assent in September 2023, the census has yet to be conducted, delaying the implementation of the reservation, which the National Federation of India Women is now challenging.

During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that Article 334A is a mechanism to delay or hinder the implementation of women’s reservation. "We are challenging the provision that women’s reservation will only come into effect after delimitation and census. It is arbitrary and lacks rational connection," Bhushan stated, emphasizing that there is no direct link between delimitation or the census and women’s reservation.

The Court noted that the petition incorrectly referred to the Constitutional Amendment as the "Women Reservation Act" and suggested that the petitioner amend the prayer portion accordingly. The petitioner agreed to make the necessary changes.

The Court issued notice to the respondents and scheduled further consideration of the case for April 9.