Sanjeev Ahluwalia | Rising MPs: Development Need; or Jobs for the Boys?

The government is considering increasing the strength of MPs in the Lok Sabha from 543 to 816. The ostensible reason is that India’s population has increased since the last expansion in 1971, so representation suffers. A more tactical reason is that the government wants to implement the Women’s Representation Act 2023, which reserves one-third of seats for women in Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies. This is laudable and sure to get the BJP brownie points in the ongoing elections. At present, women are grossly under-represented at around 10 to 15 per cent in Parliament and the State Assemblies.

Four issues arise from this proposal. First, conceptually, linking the expansion in MPs with increasing the representation of women, casts women’s empowerment as being subject to preserving men’s rights -- a non-sequitur. The quantum of political power within a system is constant. Power gained by some is lost by others. The 1990 reservations for Other Backward Castes in government jobs and university seats did not increase the number of jobs or seats. Instead, OBCs won and the upper castes lost.

Second, the proposal upsets the power sharing-formula between the Centre and states and between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, which has worked well for nearly eight decades. Delimitation of constituencies per the existing population will reduce the share of MPs in the Lok Sabha from the southern states, where development was better and population growth lower since 1971. Penalising well-performing states seems odd. The other option would be to compensate the southern states by distorting the existing balance in Parliament by significantly increasing seats in the Rajya Sabha where members are elected by the state legislatures. Nevertheless, more representation in the Upper House does not compensate for a loss of representation in the Lower House. The Rajya Sabha does not have the dominant powers of the Lok Sabha and cannot, say, override Budget allocations passed by the Lok Sabha more than once.

Third, and most importantly, why bother doing all this? Will it improve governance? The short answer no. Indeed, it is ironic that even as AI is reducing the business workforce, Parliament is going in the reverse direction. The number of MPs in the Lok Sabha was last increased in 1971. Did it improve governance? Within four years, democratic rights were suspended for two years using the Emergency powers of the Union government under Article 352. The MP strength remained constant since then. There were no further shocks to national democratic rights.

Fourth, did stagnant MP strength since 1971 impact the economy? Not discernibly. In the thirty years to 1980-81, annual average GDP growth in current terms was 9.3 per cent, versus 13.1 per cent in the forty-four succeeding years till 2024-25. Exports increased by 8.7 per year in the earlier period but nearly doubled to 16 per cent per year in the latter period. Private consumption grew by 8.8 per cent per year in the earlier period but increased to 12.5 per cent per year in the latter period. A “shortage” of MPs did not prevent India forging ahead.

Today, the priority is to enhance the institutional capacity of Parliament to respond to development, security, and well-being concerns. The population is tapering in any case, so adding more MPs has a low priority. What matters most is the availability of fiscal resources. The fiscal firepower (tax plus borrowings in current terms) with Parliament in 2025 was 233 times larger than in 1981. More significantly, the share of Union expenditure in 1980-81 and in 2024-25 Budgets remained constant at about 14 per cent of current GDP. This stability in extraction of resources from the economy, showcases the long-term fiscal responsibility of India’s Parliament.

Should the representativeness of India’s democratic institutions be enhanced? Yes. But increasing the number of MPs is not the appropriate option. Digitalization has enhanced the ability of MPs to connect with their voters better. Digital participation, from home constituencies, could bring Parliament proceedings nearer to all constituencies and reduce time spent in Delhi by the MPs.

Making better use of MLAs is another option. For every Lok Sabha MP there are, on average, eight to ten Members of Legislative Assemblies working in the same constituency. Parliament could shrink its business to the core sovereign concerns and transfer peripheral legislation to states along with resources. This would automatically narrow the legislative load in Delhi. If immediacy of habitation with voters is a determinant for better policy execution, enlarging the role of states and MLAs is the best option.

Key voter priorities relate closely to state government effectiveness as do the demands of business -- less inspector raj, better utility services, and so on. When the Union government intercedes in these areas, it undermines the political bond between the MLA, the ward or panchayat member and the voter and stifles local innovation.

The effectiveness of parliamentarians can be enhanced by embedding sufficient research and analytical capacity into the Parliament Secretariat to support informed decision-making in committees. The funds spent on additional MPs could be better spent on making existing MPs more capable for their main job: crafting responsive legislation and debate on current issues and not oversight of development projects in constituencies. Voters should be attracted by their ability to shape legislation meeting voter expectations, not by the development largesse distributed in their constituencies.

The proposal is ill-timed, coming as it does when India is battling potential fiscal stress from the oil shock. It is time to conserve and prune expenditure, not to splurge public resources. The bottom line is, yes, to have more women in Parliament and the State Assemblies, but only at the expense of fewer men. We have hit a dead end for “soft” reform which hurts none but benefits only a few. We must accept the pain associated with reform. There are very few win-wins in the real world. Increasing the number of MPs and MLAs to accommodate more women is not one of them. Political parties are unlikely to resist the soft reform action, but citizens should. It is their tax money which is being poorly targeted.

When in doubt, postpone. This is a time-honed strategy in India. We do not have the deep buffers for new, expensive initiatives with uncertain associated public gains. Every INR we spend must maximise the results it provides. Adding more MPs simply does not pass the test. Having more women MPs is a must. Men should give way.

The writer is Distinguished Fellow, Chintan Research Foundation, and was earlier with the IAS and the World Bank