Fly on the Wall
Harish Gupta
Less Govt, More Governance — really?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often championed the slogan: "Less Government, More Governance." But that mantra may soon face its toughest test if Parliament eventually decides to substantially increase the strength of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies through the Delimitation bill.
The question being asked in political circles is simple: How does adding nearly 300 more MPs translate into less government? The proposal to expand the Lok Sabha from the present 543 members to around 850, coupled with a corresponding increase in MLAs across the states, is expected to impose a massive recurring financial burden. Estimates suggest the additional annual expenditure could exceed ₹6,000 crore or even far more once salaries, allowances, staff, security, pensions, constituency offices and infrastructure are taken into account.
Supporters of expansion contend that India's growing population deserves greater representation. But opponents question whether more legislators necessarily mean better delivery. Public frustration over corruption, absenteeism and poor accountability has hardly arisen because there are too few elected representatives. In an era of digitisation, real-time monitoring and direct benefit transfers, stronger oversight, transparent delivery systems and greater accountability may achieve far more than simply increasing the number of MPs and MLAs. As the debate gathers momentum, the government may have to answer an uncomfortable question: Does bigger government really produce better governance—or merely more government ?
More MPs, More Ministers?
One of the least discussed consequences of a larger Lok Sabha could be an equally larger government. The Constitution caps the size of the Union Council of Ministers at 15 percent of the Lok Sabha's strength. With the present House of 543 members, the ceiling stands at 81 ministers. But if the Lok Sabha is expanded to around 850 members, the permissible strength of the Council of Ministers could rise to as many as 127.
That raises an obvious political question. Modi has consistently advocated the principle of "Less Government, More Governance." Critics argue that a bigger Lok Sabha could produce exactly the opposite—a larger executive, more ministerial berths, higher expenditure and an expanded political establishment.
Supporters may call it a natural outcome of greater representation. Skeptics see it differently: more ministries, more political accommodation and a government that grows in size even as efficiency remains the real challenge.
Why Amit Shah Sacked Delhi's Top Cop
The dust over the unceremonious exit of four bureaucrats working in the office of Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav had not even settled down when another shocker came. This time, it was the turn of Delhi's Police Commissioner Satish Golcha. He was the Home Ministry's handpicked choice despite being relatively junior in the pecking order last year. His appointment had surprised many within the police establishment. The message then was clear—he enjoyed the confidence of the powers that be. But just as suddenly as he rose, he was shown the door. His removal was swift. No explanation. No farewell.
The order removing Golcha has set the rumour mills spinning. Insiders say the decision came directly from the top—Union Home Minister Amit Shah himself. Several theories are doing the rounds. Some claim he failed to provide an adequate security cover to the Chief Minister, Rekha Gupta. Others point to a series of administrative lapses. But those familiar with developments say the real reason could be far more serious. Sources indicate that the Home Minister received reports pointing to alleged serious cases of corruption. That, it is learnt, was the final straw.
The biggest surprise was that Golcha was not given a posting discarding a convention. He has been asked to report to the Lieutenant Governor's office in Delhi. There is no post in LG's office of DG rank officer. Golcha will have no work, no supporting staff. Such treatment of an officer of his rank is highly unusual and has raised eyebrows across the bureaucracy. Is this merely a temporary cooling-off period? Or is it the beginning of a much bigger crackdown within Delhi Police? In Delhi's power corridors, whispers are growing louder than official answers.
Bihar
revives a settled SC principle
Bihar has reignited a constitutional debate that the Supreme Court appeared to have settled 25 years ago. The controversy traces its roots to Punjab politics. In September 1995, after the assassination of Chief Minister Beant Singh, his son, Tej Prakash Singh, was inducted into the Punjab Cabinet despite not being a legislator. A non-member can serve as a minister for six months, provided he or she gets elected within that period. Tej Prakash failed and resigned. However, following a change of leadership in Punjab, he was reappointed as a minister without becoming an MLA.
The move was challenged and in its landmark 2001 judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri vs State of Punjab, the SC struck down the reappointment, holding that the Constitution provides only a one-time six-month window for a non-legislator. It cannot be used repeatedly to bypass the democratic process.
The same principle is now under scrutiny in Bihar. A petition before the Supreme Court challenges the reappointment of Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash. He was first sworn in by Nitish Kumar on November 20, 2025, despite not being an MLA or MLC. He was not re-inducted by the Samrat Choudhary government when it took oath on April 15, 2026. He was re-inducted on May 7, 2026, after a gap of 22 days—still without entering either House.
The petition argues that the second appointment flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling. Bihar developments have once again brought a significant constitutional question to the nation's doorstep to the limits placed by the Constitution on appointing non-MLAs as ministers.
