The Hindu Gist - 19th October, 2026
1 . Revamp Functioning of Parliament
India’s impending delimitation debate highlights a broader concern about parliamentary representation and institutional functioning. While increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha may bring legislators closer to their constituents, effective parliamentary democracy also requires adequate time, space and procedural opportunities for MPs to represent citizens and scrutinise government decisions.
Parliamentary Representation and Delimitation
- Increasing Lok Sabha strength: The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill and the Delimitation Bill, 2026, propose increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha from 550 to 850 members.
- Constituency imbalance: India’s approximately 98 crore registered voters across 543 Lok Sabha constituencies amount to an average of roughly 18 lakh voters per MP, creating a substantial representational burden.
- Regional disparities: Constituency sizes vary considerably. The article highlights Malkajgiri in Telangana, with approximately 37.8 lakh voters, compared with Lakshadweep, which has just 57,953.
- Limits of increasing seats: Expanding the number of MPs may improve representation, but it will not automatically strengthen parliamentary functioning if the time available for legislative business remains unchanged.
- Institutional capacity: Increasing the number of legislators without expanding the parliamentary timetable risks diluting individual MPs’ ability to participate meaningfully in legislative proceedings.
Legistlative Scrutiny and Institutional Reforms
- Limited parliamentary time: Under current Lok Sabha rules, the House allows a maximum of 20 starred questions and 230 unstarred questions for written answers per sitting day. Even if every MP submits a question daily, only a fraction can be selected through the ballot.
- Declining opportunities for scrutiny: During the 17th Lok Sabha, Question Hour functioned for only 60% of its scheduled time. In the Monsoon Session of 2026, Question Hour functioned for just 1% of scheduled time, lasting only nine minutes in total.
- Zero Hour and Question Hour: These parliamentary instruments allow MPs to raise urgent public issues, including regional crop failures and disaster relief. Private Members’ Business also provides legislators outside the Cabinet an opportunity to introduce their own legislation.
- Risk of underutilisation: The article argues that adding more MPs without increasing available parliamentary time will further dilute opportunities for individual participation and legislative scrutiny.
- Statutory minimum sitting days: Article 85(1) empowers the President to summon each House of Parliament, but the Constitution does not prescribe a minimum number of sitting days between sessions.
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution: The Commission recommended that the Lok Sabha meet for a minimum of 120 days annually.
- Reforms beyond delimitation: Parliamentary reforms must ensure that MPs receive adequate time to question the government, debate legislation, raise constituency concerns and participate in legislative business.
- Protecting parliamentary representation: While delimitation may redraw constituency boundaries, parliamentary reform must ensure that the voices of citizens within those constituencies are meaningfully heard.
2. Separation of Powers and the CJI’s Refusal
Background to the Opposition’s Request
On October 10, Opposition leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi sought a meeting with the CJI over allegations against CEC Gyanesh Kumar concerning the SIR, treatment of peaceful protesters and restrictions on movement in Delhi. They sought disclosure of SIR records, an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to review decisions and audit voter deletions, and suspension of the exercise. Rahul Gandhi also highlighted the right to vote and the CEC’s role in the Selection Committee under Section 7 of the 2023 Act. The CJI declined the meeting, stating that the issues were already sub judice and should be pursued through established judicial procedures.
Separation of Powers and the Limits of Judicial Intervention
- Constitutional boundaries: The CJI emphasised that convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would compromise the principle of separation of powers, an intrinsic feature of the Constitution, and could be incompatible with judicial ethics and propriety.
- Judicial independence: The response reiterated that the judiciary must preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings and avoid actions that could create an impression of political alignment or impropriety.
- Right to protest and citizens’ rights: The CJI’s response also acknowledged the constitutional framework within which citizens’ fundamental rights must be protected. The appropriate remedy for alleged violations, however, lies through established judicial procedures.
- Alternative remedy: The CJI advised the Opposition leaders that it would be more appropriate to move the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India by filing a petition in the public interest.
Judicial Propriety and the Handling of Politically Sensitive Issues
- Three considerations: The CJI’s response identified the separation of powers, the doctrine of judicial propriety and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct as relevant considerations.
- Separation of powers: This doctrine distinguishes the respective functions of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The Court performs an important role in adjudicating disputes and reviewing executive or legislative action through established procedures, rather than informally intervening in government policy.
- Judicial propriety: The principle requires judges to avoid conduct that could undermine public confidence in judicial neutrality. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct reinforce ethical standards intended to preserve judicial independence and impartiality.
- Alternative remedy: The CJI advised the Opposition leaders to approach the Supreme Court through a formal petition on the judicial side, rather than seeking an administrative meeting to discuss pending matters.
Earlier Controversies and the Importance of Judicial Neutrality
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 visit: During the Prime Minister’s visit to the residence of then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud drew public criticism over perceptions of proximity between the executive and judiciary. The episode illustrated the sensitivity surrounding judicial propriety.
- Historical precedents: Earlier controversies include Justice P. N. Bhagwati’s congratulatory letter to Indira Gandhi following her 1980 election victory, Justice Arun Mishra’s public praise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2020, and the invitation extended to then CJI Ranjan Gogoi to attend a BIMSTEC conference.
- Judicial appointments and executive influence: In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed Chief Justice of India, superseding Justices J. M. Shelat, K. S. Hegde and A. N. Grover. The episode became a major example of concerns about executive influence over judicial appointments.
- Institutional safeguards: Concerns over executive influence on judicial appointments contributed to debates that shaped the collegium system through the Supreme Court’s Judges Cases. Separately, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted in 2002, set out ethical standards for judicial independence, impartiality and propriety.
The Indian Express Gist - 19th October, 2026
No Important Articles today or has already been covered.
