Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while establishing a parliamentary form of government, initially lacked specific provisions regarding the maximum size of the Council of Ministers. This led to situations where governments, particularly at the state level, appointed excessively large ministries, often driven by political considerations rather than administrative efficiency. The Ninety-First Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, was enacted to address this issue, aiming to provide a more pragmatic and efficient governance structure by imposing limits on the number of ministers. This amendment sought to balance the need for adequate representation with the principles of accountability and effective decision-making.
Provisions of the Ninety-First Amendment Act, 2003
The Act amended Articles 75 (Union Council of Ministers) and 164 (State Council of Ministers) of the Constitution. Key provisions include:
- Union Council of Ministers: The total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha.
- State Council of Ministers: The total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, cannot exceed 15% of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly. However, this limit can be relaxed to a maximum of 20% in situations of coalition governments.
- Minimum Number of Ministers: The Act also stipulates a minimum number of ministers to ensure adequate representation.
Rationale Behind the Amendment
Several factors prompted the enactment of the Ninety-First Amendment:
- Financial Burden: Large ministries placed a significant strain on the exchequer due to salaries, allowances, and perks.
- Administrative Inefficiency: A bloated Council of Ministers often led to coordination problems, delayed decision-making, and a lack of accountability.
- Political Considerations: The practice of accommodating all sections of society and coalition partners through ministerial positions often compromised administrative efficiency.
- Recommendations of Commissions: Various commissions, including the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008), had advocated for limiting the size of the Council of Ministers.
Has the Act Successfully ‘Right-Sized’ the Council of Ministers?
While the Act has undoubtedly imposed a ceiling on the number of ministers, its success in truly ‘right-sizing’ the Council is debatable.
- Reduced Size: The Act has demonstrably reduced the size of ministries in many states, leading to some cost savings and improved coordination. For example, several states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar significantly reduced their ministerial strength after the amendment.
- Coalition Challenges: The 20% relaxation for coalition governments has often been utilized, negating the intended effect of the amendment in many states. This has led to situations where states with unstable coalition governments still have relatively large ministries.
- Focus on Numbers, Not Quality: The amendment focuses solely on the *number* of ministers and does not address the *quality* or *efficiency* of those appointed. A smaller ministry is not necessarily a more effective ministry.
- Circumvention through Departments: Some states have attempted to circumvent the limitations by creating a large number of Ministers of State (Independent Charge), effectively diluting the principle of collective responsibility.
Comparative Analysis: Pre and Post Amendment
| Feature | Pre-Amendment (Before 2003) | Post-Amendment (After 2003) |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Size (Union) | No constitutional limit | 15% of Lok Sabha strength |
| Maximum Size (State) | No constitutional limit | 15% of Legislative Assembly strength (20% for coalitions) |
| Administrative Efficiency | Often compromised due to large size | Potentially improved, but dependent on coalition dynamics and quality of ministers |
| Financial Burden | High due to large ministerial salaries and perks | Reduced in some states, but impact varies |
Conclusion
The Ninety-First Constitutional Amendment Act was a significant step towards rationalizing the size of the Council of Ministers in India. While it has successfully imposed a ceiling on the number of ministers and led to some cost savings, its effectiveness has been limited by the provision for relaxation in coalition governments and its failure to address the quality of appointments. A truly ‘right-sized’ Council of Ministers requires not just numerical limits, but also a focus on merit, efficiency, and accountability, alongside reforms in the allocation of portfolios and the functioning of the government.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.