India stands at a peculiar moment in its democratic journey. Parliament has spoken decisively in favour of reserving one-third of seats for women. Yet, the implementation of that promise remains deferred – contingent on a future census and subsequent delimitation, both politically sensitive and administratively uncertain.In effect, a constitutional commitment has been made, but its realisation has been postponed.The debate that has followed is not without merit. Political parties worry about the displacement of sitting members. States are apprehensive about losing relative representation in a future delimitation. Legal experts point to the complexities of redrawing constituencies and the risks of implementing reservation on an outdated (2011 Census) electoral map. Each of these concerns is valid – within the architecture of the current law.But the real question is this: must India remain confined within that architecture?A constitutional workaround that changes nothing – and everythingThere exists a constitutionally sound, administratively simple and politically neutral solution that can deliver women’s reservation immediately – within the life of the current Lok Sabha – without waiting for Census, without triggering delimitation, and without displacing a single Member of Parliament.The solution is to introduce a limited, supplementary layer of proportional representation.Parliament can, through a focused constitutional amendment, increase the strength of the Lok Sabha by adding approximately 273 seats, as already decided by the Cabinet, and allocate these seats to political parties in proportion to their vote share in the 2024 general election. These additional seats can be reserved entirely for women.This may sound radical but it is not an overturning of the electoral system. The existing first-past-the-post framework remains intact. All currently elected MPs continue to represent their constituencies. What is added is a compensatory layer that reflects the actual distribution of votes across the country.What the numbers revealTo understand the practicality of this proposal, consider the 2024 general election. Based on officially reported national vote shares, a proportional allocation of 273 additional seats would broadly translate as follows in the table below:Vote Share vs Seat SharePartyCurrent Vote Share %Current No. of SeatsVote-share-based allocationSeat-share-based allocationBJP36.5%240100121INC21.1%995850SP4.58371319TMC4.37291215DMK2.26%22611TDP2.06%1668JD(U)1.79%1256Shiv Sena (UBT)1.48%945NCP (SP)1.19%834Shiv Sena1.7%734LJP (RV)1.06%533CPI(M)1.76%452BSP1.98%060AAP0.97%332RJD1.57%542YSRCP2.47%462JMM0.56%322Others (combined)12.6%415615All these seats would be filled by women candidates nominated by the respective parties through transparent, declared lists.With this single step, women’s representation in the Lok Sabha would rise to one-third – immediately.Women’s representation – delivered immediatelyThe elegance of this solution lies in how it resolves, simultaneously, every major objection that has stalled the current law.First, it eliminates the need for delimitation. No constituency boundaries are altered. No state gains or loses relative representation. The politically sensitive balance between regions – particularly the long-standing concerns of southern states – is left untouched. A deeply contentious issue is simply bypassed.Second, it removes dependence on census data. Representation is based not on projected population figures but on votes actually cast by citizens in the most recent election. In that sense, it is a more direct and contemporaneous expression of democratic will.Third, it avoids the disruptive effects of rotation. The constituencies would not be periodically reserved and de-reserved, weakening accountability and continuity. Under the proposed model, no constituency is disturbed, and no MP is displaced. Stability is preserved. Women who come in through this system may still contest from their chosen constituencies, like before.Fourth, it enables immediate implementation. Women’s reservation need not wait until 2034 or even 2029. It can be realised now, within the present Lok Sabha.Why this is a rare win-winFor all the reasons cited above, this proposal is not merely workable – it is uniquely a win-win.The government can fulfil its constitutional promise without delay. The opposition can support a system that allocates seats strictly on the basis of vote share/seat share, ensuring fairness. States retain their existing representation. Sitting MPs lose nothing. And women gain representation instantly.In a political system often characterised by zero-sum outcomes, this is a rare reform where everyone benefits and no one is disadvantaged.Is this constitutionally sound?The constitutional pathway is clear and precise. Article 81 of the Constitution, which governs the composition of the Lok Sabha, can be amended to increase the size of the House. A new, narrowly crafted provision can be inserted to create “supplementary seats” allocated on the basis of proportional representation. A further clause can mandate that these seats be reserved for women for a specified period.Such an amendment is well within the competence of Parliament. It does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. On the contrary, by aligning seat allocation more closely with vote share, it enhances the representative character of the legislature.The ‘second-class’ MP argumentA frequently voiced concern is that members elected through proportional representation would be “second-class” MPs compared to those elected from constituencies.This argument is ridiculous.The Constitution does not recognise hierarchies among members of parliament. Once chosen through a constitutionally valid process, all members enjoy equal status, rights and responsibilities. Parliament already includes members who are not elected through direct territorial contests – nominated members, for instance – and their standing is not diminished. More importantly, these MPs would go to Lok Sabha, not to Rajya Sabha, unlike the nominated members.More fundamentally, proportional representation is not an inferior route to legitimacy. It is, in many respects, a broader one. A constituency MP represents a defined geographical segment. A member elected through proportional allocation reflects a wider electorate. Their democratic basis is different, but not weaker.A global norm, not an experimentIndeed, several established democracies successfully operate hybrid systems combining constituency-based elections with proportional representation. These systems do not create second-class legislators; they produce more representative legislatures. Among the examples are: Germany, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and closer home Nepal where the ‘mixed system’ is working beautifully. It’s noteworthy, the PR system or mixed system is effectively enforced in about 120 countries (~90 PR and ~30 mixed) and working well.Another concern relates to the expansion of the Lok Sabha. Yet, given India’s population, the current size of the House is already modest. (UK, approximately 1/20 of India, has 650 MPs.) Increasing its strength to improve representation – especially of women – is a democratic necessity. Effective parliamentary functioning depends more on procedures and committee systems than on numerical size alone. Fortunately, in a far sighted move, then criticised, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had expanded the seating capacity of Lok Sabha to 888. So space is no constraint.Questions about excessive party control over candidate lists are legitimate. They can be addressed through statutory safeguards – mandatory transparency in list preparation, regional balance, and internal party democratic processes. These are issues of institutional design, not barriers to reform. Even reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be accommodated in the additional 273.Feasibility is no longer the questionAt a deeper level, this proposal achieves something significant. It shifts the basis of representation, even if partially, from territory to votes. In doing so, it significantly corrects the distortions inherent in the first-past-the-post system where seat shares often diverge sharply from vote shares. The most glaring example is from Uttar Pradesh where in 2014, BSP’s 20% vote share translated into zero seats.When a constitutional promise can be delivered immediately, fairly and without disrupting any stakeholder – what justification remains for delay?India does not need to wait for perfect conditions. It does not need to reopen contentious questions of delimitation or population balance. It does not need to displace its elected representatives. Remember, the best is the enemy of the good.We only need to adopt a design that works.And when a solution delivers justice without cost, representation without conflict, and reform without disruption, the choice should not be difficult.The time to act is NOW.Whatever be the merits of the proposals above, it is hoped that the government will examine them thoroughly and implement them, at least as a short-term measure, for five years.The writer is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and the author of An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election’ 2014.