In an extended Budget Session next week, Parliament is slated to take up amendments to operationalise women’s reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, a welcome reform that has long commanded broad consensus. The foundation of this reform was laid through the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, which introduced provisions reserving one-third of the seats in these bodies and also linked their implementation to a future Census (effectively 2027) and the delimitation exercise that would follow.This was consistent with the existing constitutional framework governing representation in Lok Sabha, where seats are allocated among states based on population, and constituencies are periodically redrawn to reflect demographic change. By tying reservation to this process, the Amendment ensured that the introduction of reserved seats would take place within an updated and internally consistent representational structure.AdvertisementThe proposed amendments are expected to depart from this framework in two important respects. First, they are likely to increase the size of the Lok Sabha (from 543 to 816) to accommodate the one-third reservation for women. Second, they may delink the implementation of reservation from the next Census-based delimitation cycle, instead relying on the 2011 census. Together, these changes shall advance the timeline for implementation, potentially bringing reservation into effect as early as the 2029 general elections.At one level, this legislative approach is pragmatic. It avoids the delays associated with conducting a fresh Census and a nationwide delimitation exercise, and enables the reform to be implemented at the earliest possible stage. Yet, this pragmatism comes with constitutional trade-offs.Also Read | Sharmila Tagore writes: Thank you Asha jiAdvertisementThe Constitution (Articles 81-82) requires that seats for the states in the Lok Sabha must be allocated on the basis of population, a mandate that is given effect through the periodic redrawing of electoral boundaries, referred to as delimitation. The government’s proposed reliance on the 2011 Census, as against the ongoing 2027 Census, for operationalising the reservation raises the possibility that the resulting electoral map may not reflect current demographic realities, and may thereby affect the relative weight of votes across constituencies and states.At the same time, strict adherence to the latest Census raises a separate concern of federal imbalance. Over time, population growth across states has not been uniform, with states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar experiencing significantly higher growth compared to states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu. A fresh delimitation based on updated population data would likely result in a reallocation of seats in favour of faster-growing states. This creates a structural tension: The use of updated population data furthers representational equality, but also alters the federal balance of representation in Parliament.The government’s solution to this tension is the pro rata formula, under which the allocation of new seats would be done proportionally, based on the existing distribution of seats in the Lok Sabha. For instance, if the strength of the Lok Sabha is increased from 543 to 816, Uttar Pradesh would see its seats increase from 80 to 120, Maharashtra from 48 to 72, and Tamil Nadu from 39 to 59. Each state would therefore gain in absolute terms, but the relative distribution of seats would remain unchanged.While this approach may address immediate political concerns, it raises its own constitutional questions. The current distribution of seats across states is not based on a recent population exercise, but reflects a historical freeze dating back to the 1971 Census. The pro rata approach preserves this distribution and, in doing so, runs contrary to the requirements of Article 81, which contemplates that the ratio between seats and population should, “so far as practicable”, be uniform across states.Beyond these choices lies a more fundamental question regarding the legitimacy of the delimitation process itself. Any increase in the size of the Lok Sabha will necessarily require a fresh delimitation exercise to be undertaken by a Delimitation Commission. The manner in which this exercise is conducted shall therefore be central to the credibility of the proposed reform.However, past delimitation exercises in India have been marked by limited transparency. For instance, the Delimitation Commissions have failed to publicly share the data, methodology, or reasoning underlying their decisions and orders. In fact, the requests for access to such material, even under the Right to Information Act, have also been denied. At the same time, since constitutionally, this process is largely insulated from judicial review due to the bar under Article 329 of the Constitution, the result is an exercise with significant consequences for representation, but limited avenues for public scrutiny or accountability.you may likeThese concerns are heightened by the institutional design of the process itself. The Commissions constituted under the previous Delimitation Commission Acts of 1952, 1962, 1972, and 2002 have been three-member bodies, with the Chairperson appointed by the Union government. In the absence of meaningful transparency or scope for judicial review, this executive-driven structure may raise questions about the independence of the exercise.Women’s reservation is a long-overdue reform, and its implementation should not be delayed. The manner in which it is introduced will shape the contours of representation in Parliament for years to come. Therefore, the challenge before Parliament is not merely to implement the reservation, but to do so in a manner that balances the competing demands of representational equality, federal fairness, and institutional legitimacy.The writer leads Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal