Why India has (only) 543 MPs? A thread -
After the first Lok Sabha election in 1952, number of MPs were 489, for a country with the population of 38 cr.
Over the time, number of constituencies were increased as per growing population and ultimately the number reached 543.
After the first Lok Sabha election in 1952, number of MPs were 489, for a country with the population of 38 cr.
Over the time, number of constituencies were increased as per growing population and ultimately the number reached 543.
By this time, Lok Sabha of Parliament House, built in 1921, had become crowded due to growing number of MPs.
What is the solution?
What is the solution?
Someone suggested to freeze the number at 543 so that there is no need to accommodate more people. Through subsequent amendments, in 1976 and then in 2001, Lok Sabha seats were frozen at 543 till 2026.
During all these years, the population of India grew from 56 cr in 1971 to 138 cr. Thus 1 MP represented appx 10.68 L people in 1971, while 1 MP now represents 25.41 L people in 2020. A seat in the Lok Sabha represents more people than any other Parliamentary seat in the world.
Just to give an idea, another Parliamentary democracy, United Kingdom, has an MP representing appx 45,000 people. To have that ratio, India requires 30,000 MPs!
So just to avoid a place to accommodate more MPs, India didn't increase number of Parliament seats for almost 50 years! All this only made MPs more powerful, while greatly reducing people's representation.
I had initially read about this first time in 2001-2002, and since then I have always considered this as the procrastination of the highest order, delaying the solution by doing absolutely nothing for 50 years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
