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

The government is considering increasing the number of MPs in the Lok Sabha from 543 to 816. The ostensible reason for this 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 Representation of Women Act, 2023, which reserves one-third of the seats in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies for women. This is commendable and is sure to get brownie points for the BJP in the ongoing elections. Currently, women are significantly under-represented in Parliament and State Assemblies at around 10 to 15 per cent.

Four issues emerge from this proposal. First, conceptually, linking an increase in the number of MPs to an increase in women’s representation makes women’s empowerment dependent on the protection of men’s rights; This is also an inconclusive situation. The amount of political power within a system is fixed. The 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, the OBCs won and the upper castes lost.

Secondly, the proposal upsets the power-sharing formula between the Center and the states and between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, which has worked well for nearly eight decades. Delimiting constituencies based on existing population will reduce the share of MPs in the Lok Sabha from southern states, where development has been better and population growth has been lower since 1971. It seems odd that states that perform well are penalized. The other option would be to compensate the southern states by disrupting the current balance in Parliament by significantly increasing the number of seats in the Rajya Sabha, where members are elected by state legislatures. However, greater representation in the Upper House does not compensate for the loss of representation in the Lower House. The Rajya Sabha does not have the overriding powers of the Lok Sabha and cannot, for example, 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 is no. In fact, it is ironic that Parliament is heading in the opposite direction as AI reduces the workforce. 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 Union government’s Emergency powers under Article 352. Since then, the parliamentary power has remained the same. There was no further shock to national democratic rights.

Fourth, has the stagnant MP power since 1971 affected the economy? Not in any obvious way. In the three decades up to 1980-81, the average annual GDP growth in current terms was 9.3 percent, while in the following forty-four years up to 2024-25 it was 13.1 percent. While exports increased by 8.7 percent annually in the previous period, they almost doubled to 16 percent annually in the second period. While private consumption grew at an annual rate of 8.8 percent in the previous period, it increased to 12.5 percent annually in the second period. The “lack” of MPs has not hindered India’s progress.

The priority today is to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Parliament to respond to development, security and welfare concerns. The population is already declining, so adding more MPs is a low priority. The most important thing is the availability of financial resources. In 2025, Parliament’s fiscal firepower (taxes plus borrowings) was 233 times greater than in 1981. More importantly, the share of Union expenditure in the 1980-81 and 2024-25 budgets remained stable at around 14 percent of current GDP. This stability in extracting resources from the economy demonstrates the long-term fiscal responsibility of the Indian Parliament.

Should the representativeness of India’s democratic institutions be increased? Yes. But increasing the number of MPs is not the right option. Digitalization has improved MPs’ ability to better connect with their constituents. Digital engagement from home constituencies can bring Parliament proceedings closer to all constituencies and reduce the time MPs spend in Delhi.

Making better use of MLAs is another option. For every Lok Sabha MP, there are on average eight to ten Members of the Legislative Assembly working in the same constituency. Parliament could reduce its work to core sovereign concerns and delegate environmental legislation, along with resources, to the states. This will automatically narrow down the legislative burden in Delhi. If the urgency of settling in voters is a determinant for better implementation of policy, expanding the role of states and MLAs is the best option.

Voters’ key priorities are as closely tied to state government effectiveness as business demands — fewer inspectors, better public services, etc. When the Union government interferes in these areas, it weakens the political bond between the MLA, district or panchayat member and the voter and stifles local innovations.

The effectiveness of parliamentarians can be enhanced by embedding adequate research and analytical capacity in the Parliamentary Secretariat to support informed decision-making in committees. Funds spent on additional MPs could be better spent on making existing MPs more capable of their main job: drafting sensitive legislation and debates on current issues rather than overseeing development projects in their constituencies. Voters should be attracted not by the development largesse doled out to their constituency, but by their ability to shape legislation that meets voter expectations.

The proposal is ill-timed as it comes at a time when India is struggling with potential fiscal stress from the oil shock. It is time to protect and prune expenditures, not to waste public resources. The bottom line is, yes, there should be more women in Parliament and State Assemblies, but at the expense of fewer men. We are deadlocked on “soft” reform that harms no one but benefits only a few. We must acknowledge the pain that reform brings. There are very few win-win situations in the real world. Increasing the number of members of parliament and MPs to accommodate more women is not one of them. Political parties are unlikely to resist soft reform action, but citizens should. It is their tax money that is badly targeted.

When in doubt, postpone. This is a strategy honed over time in India. We do not have deep buffers for uncertain new and expensive initiatives related to public gains. Every INR we spend should maximize the results it provides. Adding more MPs would not pass the test. It is essential to have more female MPs. Men must give way.

The author is a Distinguished Fellow of the Chintan Research Foundation and has previously worked at the IAS and the World Bank.