Revamp functioning of Parliament

India’s impending delimitation debate may appear, at first glance, to be a matter of democratic arithmetic: if too many citizens are being represented by one Member of Parliament (MP), then the answer seems to be to simply increase the number of MPs. However, in a diverse democracy like India, representation cannot be limited to the number of MPs occupying the House; rather, it must also ensure that those elected have the institutional space to speak for their constituents.

Parliamentary representation operates in two layers: the voter’s access to their MP and the MP’s ability to speak for them on the floor of the House. The latter relies significantly on whether the MP receives the actual floor time to raise issues. While delimitation may bring legislators closer to their constituents, merely increasing the seats without strengthening their functional capacity will leave representatives muted on the floor.

The jointly introduced Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill and the Delimitation Bill, 2026, provide for increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha from 550 to 850 members. As per the Election Commission’s 2024 Atlas, India manages an electoral roll of 97.98 crore voters, across 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, averaging roughly 18 lakh voters/constituency, highlighting the burden on an MP. This average also conceals severe constituency-wide disparities: the constituency of Malkajgiri in Telangana has 37.8 lakh voters, whereas Lakshadweep has just 57,953. While these realities signify an urgent need for restructuring, the proposed plan has turned a blind eye towards increasing Parliament’s working capacity.

This missing institutional capacity represents a major structural blind spot. Adding hundreds of members will worsen an existing problem: the severe lack of available floor time. If Parliament’s operational timetable remains fixed, adding more lawmakers dilutes individual members’ ability to participate in legislative business.

Not enough time

In the Question hour currently, Lok Sabha rules allow a maximum of 20 starred questions for oral answers and 230 unstarred questions for written answers per sitting day. Even though each MP can submit up to five questions daily, only a tiny fraction is selected through the daily ballot. If the total number of MPs is increased to 850, while keeping daily sitting hours the same, the chances of an MP getting an oral answer from a Minister will become even more low.

Moreover, during the 17th Lok Sabha, Question Hour functioned for only 60% of its scheduled time. The time constraints were even more severe during the 2026 Monsoon Session, where the Question Hour operated for only 1% of its scheduled time, running for a total of just nine minutes across the entire session. Adding more members to a House operating under these constraints will not improve executive-legislative accountability.

Other crucial parliamentary procedures will also be impacted by this reduction in time. For example, MPs use Zero Hour to raise urgent issues as it does not require any advance notice. It has been crucial in bringing to light urgent public matters such as regional crop failures or disaster relief. Similarly, Private Member’s Business gives MPs who are not part of the Cabinet a chance to bring in their own legislation. These are indispensable instruments that will lose their essence if they are not protected with measures that allow them to be fully utilised. Debates and discussions over treasury bills and annual budget also face similar procedural bottlenecks. Throughout the 17th Lok Sabha, 35% of bills were passed after less than an hour of debate and roughly 80% of the national Budget was passed resorting to guillotine procedure. 

In order to protect the voice of the representatives, it is necessary to give Parliament’s sitting time a statutory status. Article 85(1) of the Constitution states that the President shall summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. This provision should be expanded to include a mandatory minimum working days clause. As recommended by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Lok Sabha must meet for a minimum of 120 days per year. Additionally, parliamentary instruments such as Zero Hour and Question Hour need protected status, with a mandatory allocated time that cannot be changed as per the directions of the Speaker. Further, an increase in the strength of the standing committees from a maximum limit of 31 members must also be undertaken to address legislative demands.

True representation means that the MP has adequate time and opportunity to voice out the concerns of citizens in Parliament. While delimitation can redraw the boundaries of the constituencies, parliamentary reforms are necessary to ensure that the voices within those constituencies are heard.

Atharva Deshmukh is Policy Researcher and LAMP Fellow (2024–25). Mehul Chhabra is Policy Researcher and LAMP Fellow (2024–25)