Federalism under pressure: The politics of parliamentary numbers

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan 

When Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as Railway Minister after the tragic Ariyalur train disaster in 1956, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru clarified in Parliament that the resignation was accepted not because Shastri was personally responsible for the accident, but because constitutional democracy demanded that those occupying high office uphold the highest standards of moral accountability. That moment became a defining benchmark of political ethics in independent India.

Seven decades later, the contrast is striking. Following the recent controversy over repeated examination paper leaks, the Union Education Minister resigned. Yet instead of the resignation symbolising accountability, it was accompanied by a letter celebrating personal achievements. Upon returning to Odisha, the minister received a hero's welcome from party workers and elected representatives. The symbolism reflected a significant shift in India's political culture, where resignations increasingly appear to serve political management rather than moral responsibility.

The response to public protests also reflects this transformation. Student organisations staged a prolonged demonstration at Jantar Mantar demanding accountability for repeated paper leaks. The agitation ended after assurances that a legislative framework would be introduced to address the issue. Whether those assurances ultimately translate into meaningful institutional reform remains to be seen. The episode nevertheless raises broader questions about whether governments today are more inclined to defuse public dissent through promises than by addressing the structural causes of public grievances.

Beyond these immediate events lies a larger political story. Since the 2024 general election, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) have steadily expanded their parliamentary strength through a series of political realignments and defections. Critics argue that this reflects an organised effort to move closer to the parliamentary numbers required for major constitutional changes, while supporters maintain that legislators are exercising legitimate political choice. Whatever interpretation one adopts, the gradual expansion of the ruling coalition has renewed debate over the health of India's parliamentary democracy and the functioning of the anti-defection framework.

The constitutional significance of these numbers cannot be overstated. Amendments affecting the structure of Parliament require a special majority under Article 368 of the Constitution. Such amendments become politically feasible only when a government commands overwhelming support in both Houses. This has led many observers to argue that the current political realignment is driven not merely by electoral considerations but by a broader objective of securing the legislative strength necessary to undertake far-reaching constitutional reforms.

These concerns came into sharper focus during the parliamentary debate over the proposed Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill in April 2026. According to the government, the proposal sought to address a longstanding representational imbalance by increasing the size of the Lok Sabha and facilitating the implementation of women's reservation without reducing the number of existing general constituencies. The government argued that Members of Parliament today represent constituencies far larger than those envisaged when the Constitution was framed and that expanding the House would strengthen democratic representation.

The opposition, however, viewed the proposal differently. It argued that women's reservation could be implemented within the existing strength of the Lok Sabha and alleged that the proposed restructuring was intended primarily to facilitate a new delimitation exercise that would substantially alter the political balance between regions. When the amendment failed to secure the required constitutional majority, the debate over representation, federalism and constitutional intent became even more intense.

Central to this controversy is the issue of delimitation. The freeze on the reallocation of parliamentary seats, first introduced during Indira Gandhi's tenure and later extended under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, sought to ensure that states which successfully implemented population control measures would not be politically disadvantaged. Once the freeze ends, parliamentary representation may once again reflect population changes, potentially increasing the number of seats allocated to faster-growing northern states while reducing the relative influence of southern states.

Such a shift would carry profound political implications. If representation increasingly favours the Hindi-speaking northern belt, national electoral outcomes could become significantly less dependent on southern states. Critics fear that this would weaken India's federal balance and reduce the political influence of regions that have historically contributed to coalition-building and policy diversity. Supporters, however, argue that equal representation based on population is itself a democratic imperative. The debate therefore is not merely about numbers but about competing interpretations of democratic fairness.

The broader concern extends beyond delimitation alone. Several constitutional and electoral reforms have been proposed or discussed in recent years, including the idea of simultaneous elections under the "One Nation, One Election" framework and other measures affecting the relationship between the Union and the states. Supporters describe these proposals as necessary reforms aimed at improving governance and reducing election-related expenditure. Critics warn that they may centralise political power, weaken regional parties and diminish the federal character of the Constitution.

Regional parties have historically represented India's extraordinary linguistic, cultural and regional diversity. Their presence has often ensured that national governments remain responsive to local aspirations. If political competition increasingly becomes concentrated within a single dominant national framework, the constitutional balance between central authority and regional representation may undergo a fundamental transformation. Whether such a transformation strengthens governance or weakens democratic pluralism is a question that deserves careful public debate rather than partisan rhetoric.

Democracy is sustained not merely by elections but by constitutional conventions, institutional restraint and public vigilance. Political majorities are legitimate, but the methods through which they are built and the purposes for which they are used remain matters of public concern in any constitutional democracy. As India enters a period of potentially significant constitutional change, citizens must engage critically with these developments, distinguish between political messaging and institutional reform, and insist that any structural changes strengthen rather than diminish democratic accountability.

The health of a democracy ultimately depends not on the strength of those in power but on the resilience of its institutions and the vigilance of its citizens. Constitutional change should emerge from broad national consensus rather than political expediency. The questions confronting India today are therefore larger than any single government or opposition. They concern the kind of republic we aspire to become and whether constitutional morality, federal balance and democratic pluralism will continue to guide that journey.

---

Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a group of digital activists working to combat disinformation on social media