Number of Ministers in the Council – 91st Amendment Cap

Council size 91st Amendment provisions cap the total strength of the Council of Ministers, a constraint the original 1950 Constitution never imposed. Before 2003, the number of ministers at the Union and in the states was left entirely to political discretion, and it grew and shrank sharply over the decades until the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 fixed a maximum ceiling tied to the strength of the elected House.

The Original Silence and Its Consequences

Article 75, as originally enacted, said nothing about how many ministers a Council could have; the size was determined purely "according to the exigencies of the time." This flexibility produced wide swings in practice: the Union Council of Ministers stood at 47 members at the end of 1961, rose to 60 by the end of 1975, was cut sharply to 24 in 1977, and climbed back up to 58 by July 1989, while the National Front government under V.P. Singh began with only 22 ministers. Because there was no upper limit, governments — particularly coalition or minority governments in a fractured Lok Sabha — faced a persistent temptation to expand the Council simply to reward or retain the support of individual members of Parliament, a pattern that repeated itself in several state legislatures as well.

The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003

To check this trend, Parliament enacted the Ninety-first Amendment, which inserted Article 75(1A) at the Union level: the total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the House of the People. The same Amendment inserted the mirror provision, Article 164(1A), for the states, capping a state's Council of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, at fifteen per cent of the total membership of the state's Legislative Assembly, while also fixing a floor of a minimum of twelve ministers so that even very small assemblies retain a functioning Council.

Curbing Defection Through the Same Amendment

The 91st Amendment addressed a second problem alongside Council size: the use of ministerial berths as an inducement for defection. It inserted Article 75(1B) (and the corresponding Article 164(1B) for states), disqualifying a member of either House who has been disqualified for defection under the Tenth Schedule from being appointed a minister, for the period running from the date of disqualification until the term of that membership would have expired, or until re-election, whichever comes first. The Amendment also removed the earlier exemption under the Tenth Schedule that had allowed a "split" of one-third of a party's members to escape the anti-defection law, closing a route through which large-scale defections had previously been engineered, often accompanied by ministerial appointments as an incentive.

Delhi and the National Capital Territory

The Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 had earlier given Delhi the status of the National Capital Territory, with a directly elected Legislative Assembly of 70 members and a Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister, functioning under Article 239AA. Because the NCT's Council of Ministers also draws its members from a small elected Assembly, the same underlying concern — an oversized Council relative to the size of the House — applies with particular force in a unit of this scale, reinforcing why the numerical cap introduced by the 91st Amendment matters beyond the states with larger assemblies.

A Proposal That Went Further

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution examined the question of Council size and, in its recommendations, suggested an even tighter ceiling — a maximum of ten per cent of the strength of the popular house of the legislature, rather than the fifteen per cent that Parliament eventually adopted through the 91st Amendment. Parliament did not adopt the ten per cent figure, settling instead on the higher fifteen per cent cap that remains in force today, alongside the minimum of twelve ministers preserved for the states.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Article 75(1A) (91st Amendment, 2003): total Union ministers, including the PM, capped at 15% of Lok Sabha strength.
• Article 164(1A) (91st Amendment, 2003): state Council of Ministers capped at 15% of Assembly strength, with a floor of a minimum of 12 ministers.
• Before the 91st Amendment, Union Council strength fluctuated widely: 47 (1961), 60 (1975), 24 (1977), 58 (1989).

Mains

• Discuss why the Constitution originally left the size of the Council of Ministers unregulated, and the problems this created before the 91st Amendment.
• Examine how the 91st Amendment Act, 2003 addressed both the size of the Council of Ministers and defection-driven ministerial appointments together.
• Evaluate the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution's recommendation of a lower ceiling against the fifteen per cent cap Parliament actually adopted.

FAQ

Q1. What is the maximum size of the Union Council of Ministers today? Under Article 75(1A), inserted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot exceed fifteen per cent of the total membership of the Lok Sabha.

Q2. Did the original Constitution place any limit on the number of ministers? No. The original Constitution left the size of the Council of Ministers to political discretion, and it varied considerably over time — from 47 in 1961 to 60 in 1975 to just 24 in 1977.

Q3. What is the cap on the size of a state Council of Ministers? Article 164(1A), also inserted by the 91st Amendment, caps a state's Council of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, at fifteen per cent of the Legislative Assembly's strength, with a minimum floor of twelve ministers.

Q4. How does the 91st Amendment address defection alongside the size cap? The same Amendment inserted Articles 75(1B) and 164(1B), barring members disqualified for defection under the Tenth Schedule from being appointed ministers, and removed the earlier one-third "split" exemption that had allowed defections to escape disqualification.

Q5. Did any body recommend a stricter cap than 15%? Yes. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution had recommended capping the Council of Ministers at ten per cent of the popular house's strength, but Parliament ultimately adopted the higher fifteen per cent figure through the 91st Amendment.

Quick Revision

• Article 75(1A): Union Council of Ministers capped at 15% of Lok Sabha strength.
• Article 164(1A): State Council of Ministers capped at 15% of Assembly strength, minimum 12 ministers.
• Pre-2003 Union Council sizes: 47 (1961), 60 (1975), 24 (1977), 58 (1989), 22 (1989, National Front).
• Article 75(1B)/164(1B): bar disqualified defectors from ministerial appointment.
• 91st Amendment also removed the one-third "split" exemption under the Tenth Schedule.
• NCRWC had recommended a 10% cap; Parliament adopted 15% instead.
• 69th Amendment (1991): created the NCT of Delhi with a 70-member Assembly and its own Council of Ministers.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 75, Article 164, and Article 239AA — legislative.gov.in
• The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 — legislative.gov.in
• The Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 — legislative.gov.in
• Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India (Anti-Defection Law) — legislative.gov.in

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.