Our Parliament is debating a Constitution Amendment Bill to increase the size of the Lok Sabha to 850 lawmakers, from the current maximum of 550 – a change that must be approved by two-thirds of the members present and voting in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The government explained that although the maximum number is 850 seats, the plan aims to increase the number of seats from 543 to 816 seats.
If this proposal is implemented, the Lok Sabha will become the largest directly elected legislative body in the world. China’s National People’s Congress, which has nearly three thousand deputies, is indirectly elected.
A closer look at the current performance of the House of Representatives offers insight into what a larger chamber might entail. This examination can be divided into two broad categories: first, daily operational performance; Secondly, the basic institutional issues.
One of the most visible aspects of the working of the Lok Sabha is the Question Hour. It is the first hour in Parliament when MPs ask ministers oral and written questions about the work the government is doing. The purpose is to hold the government accountable on behalf of the people. In the 2025 monsoon session, Lok Sabha MPs have fielded nearly 30,000 questions they want answered. The Lok Sabha Secretariat then examined these questions to ensure their consistency with the rules of procedure. Then a random lottery selected 400 oral questions and 4,800 written questions, which were sent to different ministries. Each day, ministers attempted to answer nearly two dozen personal questions – which included large portions of the active debate in the House of Representatives that viewers watched on television – and provided written answers to another 230 questions.
Then comes zero hour, when representatives highlight issues from their constituencies in a national forum. In the ongoing Budget session, on average, 140 MPs have filed notices raising their constituents’ concerns. Another lottery resulted in 20 deputies having the opportunity to read a prepared statement in the House of Representatives, lasting between three and five minutes.
This is followed by a discussion of government draft laws and budget proposals. A business advisory committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and including members from all political parties allocates time for each discussion. The allotted time is divided between the parties based on their relative strength; Parties divide their time among their members who speak on behalf of the party. On Fridays, representatives get two and a half hours to support legislation they think is important – even though the vast majority of them are not even close to passing it.
Lok Sabha speakers and MPs have repeatedly said that the House is not meeting enough, given the magnitude of its responsibility. For the past decade or so, the House has met between 55 and 70 days a year. There simply isn’t time for everyone to have an opinion. As a result, the current system barely holds together due to constraints such as timed discussions and lottery selection.
Now imagine that the Lok Sabha has 816 or 850 MPs. If radical changes are not made in the way the House of Representatives operates, it may become ineffective in holding the government to account, scrutinizing laws, and analyzing budgets. A large proportion of our representatives may also not be able to make their voices meaningfully heard during their five-year term.
The UK House of Commons – which has 650 members of Parliament – does things differently. The Council divides its time between two chambers. The Main Chamber, where all MPs come together, is where Question Hour and other national debates are held. In the second chamber, representatives discuss other topical issues. UK parliamentarians can also ask the government an unlimited number of written questions. Once every week, British MPs question their Prime Minister for an hour. Most importantly, the UK Parliament meets for 150 days. Of this period, 20 days are allocated to the opposition to set the discussion agenda. It also has a comprehensive committee system that ensures government bills are thoroughly vetted before they reach the House floor for debate.
To be sure, our parliamentary system faces some innate institutional challenges. Our representatives in the Lok Sabha have duties that are quasi-executive in nature. For example, they are appointed to various boards, advisory boards, technical bodies, authorities, universities and AIIMS under the Central and State Government. Over the decades, successive governments have amended the Offices of Profit Act to add more positions that MPs can hold without incurring disqualification.
Then there is the Parliament Party’s Local Area Development Plan, which directly involves elected legislators in recommending public works in their constituencies. These offices and schemes place representatives in areas that should be the responsibility of the government. In addition to selecting parliamentarians into local administration, these systems also distract them from their primary responsibility as legislators.
Then there is the anti-defection law that requires MPs to follow what their political party dictates to them in Parliament. Whether it is the impeachment of a judge or a bill to amend the Constitution, legislators are bound by their party’s whip and cannot exercise independent judgement. If they do so, they risk losing their seat. Whether the number of MPs is 550 or 850, it is the party leaders who will ultimately decide which position the MP takes on an issue.
Most countries keep members of parliament out of executive positions and do not have mandatory whips. If these two institutional issues are not addressed, they threaten to magnify the current problems facing the House of Representatives in the larger House of Representatives. Regardless of the outcome of the current debate in Parliament, fixing these issues is crucial to a well-functioning Lok Sabha. A larger home may not always translate into a better functioning home. To make the House truly work to improve the lives of the people whose votes form its foundation, structural changes will be needed.
