Parliamentary Reform in India: Balancing Representation with Legislative Effectiveness

Context

The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill and the Delimitation Bill, 2026, propose increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha from 550 to 850 members. The proposal has renewed the debate on equitable electoral representation, constituency size, parliamentary working hours and the need to strengthen legislative scrutiny.

Need for Parliamentary Reform

• Expanding electorate: India had 97.98 crore registered voters in 2024 across 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, increasing the representational burden on individual MPs.
• Uneven constituency populations: Malkajgiri in Telangana had approximately 37.8 lakh voters, whereas Lakshadweep had only 57,953, highlighting significant differences in the number of electors represented by an MP.
• Limited opportunities for participation: Increasing the number of MPs without extending parliamentary working hours could reduce the time available to each member to raise public concerns.
• Declining legislative scrutiny: Frequent disruptions, brief debates and limited committee examination can affect the quality of legislation and weaken executive accountability.

Background of the Delimitation Exercise

• 1976 – 42nd Constitutional Amendment: Froze the allocation of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly seats among states based on the 1971 Census. This protected states that had achieved population control from losing their relative representation.
• 2001 – 84th Constitutional Amendment: Extended the freeze on the allocation of seats among states until the relevant population figures from the first Census conducted after 2026 become available, subject to the constitutional provisions.
• 2008 – Delimitation exercise: Constituency boundaries were redrawn using 2001 Census data, while the allocation of seats among states remained frozen.

The existing arrangement has helped preserve the federal balance, but differences in population growth have intensified debates over equitable representation, population stabilisation and the distribution of parliamentary seats.

Major Challenges in Parliamentary Functioning

1. Shortage of Parliamentary Time

• Question Hour: During the 17th Lok Sabha, Question Hour operated for only around 60% of its scheduled duration. The supplied information reports that the 2026 Monsoon Session saw just nine minutes of Question Hour.
• Zero Hour: Insufficient time limits MPs’ ability to highlight urgent public grievances and emerging issues.
• Private Members’ Bills: Limited opportunities for discussion restrict non-minister MPs from presenting legislative proposals and alternative policy approaches.
• Budget scrutiny: Around 80% of the Union Budget during the 17th Lok Sabha was reportedly passed through the guillotine procedure, under which outstanding demands for grants are put to vote without individual discussion.

2. Inadequate Legislative Scrutiny

Around 35% of Bills during the 17th Lok Sabha were reportedly passed with less than one hour of debate. Limited deliberation and insufficient committee examination can leave legislative implications, implementation challenges and potential unintended consequences inadequately assessed.

3. Disruptions and Reduced Accountability

Repeated interruptions consume valuable parliamentary time and can prevent opposition members from questioning the government effectively. This weakens Parliament’s role as a forum for deliberation, scrutiny and accountability.

Constitutional Provisions Governing Parliament

• Article 85: Empowers the President to summon Parliament and requires that no more than six months elapse between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next.
• Article 118: Authorises each House of Parliament to frame rules governing its procedure and conduct of business.

These provisions establish the constitutional framework for parliamentary functioning, while leaving scope for institutional reforms to improve the duration, quality and productivity of legislative proceedings.

Reforms Required to Strengthen Parliament

• Ensure a minimum number of sitting days: Introduce a predictable parliamentary calendar and consider a statutory minimum number of working days. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended at least 120 sitting days annually for the Lok Sabha.
• Protect time for parliamentary business: Provide adequate and uninterrupted time for Question Hour, Zero Hour, legislative debates, budget discussions and Private Members’ Business.
• Strengthen parliamentary committees: Expand research support, technical expertise and committee capacity to facilitate detailed examination of Bills before they are passed.
• Improve legislative productivity: Reduce avoidable disruptions through effective enforcement of parliamentary rules and ensure that major legislative and financial proposals receive meaningful debate.
• Align representation with institutional capacity: Any increase in the number of MPs should be accompanied by adequate seating, research assistance, administrative support and sufficient time for participation.
• Promote constructive deliberation: Encourage consultation across party lines and wider stakeholder engagement to improve the inclusiveness and implementation of legislation.

Conclusion

Parliamentary reform must address both the representation of India’s growing electorate and the effective functioning of its legislature. Expanding the Lok Sabha may create opportunities for broader representation, but its success will depend on adequate sitting days, protected debate time, stronger committee scrutiny and improved legislative productivity. A more representative Parliament must also be a Parliament that deliberates effectively, scrutinises the executive and remains accountable to citizens.

Source : The Hindu