Murugan’s exit from Ministry intensifies Cabinet rejig buzz

1. At a Glance

• On 13 October 2026, L. Murugan, Union Minister of State (MoS) for Parliamentary Affairs, resigned from the Union Council of Ministers and from his Rajya Sabha seat. With at least six ministerial posts now vacant, talk of a Cabinet reshuffle has grown. [1]
• For UPSC, the event is a current hook into Article 75: how ministers are appointed, the 15% cap on the size of the ministry (91st Amendment, 2003), and how ministers relate to membership of Parliament. [1][2]
• It also touches the 2026 Delimitation Bills. If the Lok Sabha grows, the permitted size of the Union Council of Ministers grows with it, from 81 to 122. [3][4]

2. Why in the News

• Murugan resigned from the Council of Ministers and his Rajya Sabha seat on Tuesday, 13 October 2026. This set off talk of a Cabinet reshuffle soon. [1]
• He is from Tamil Nadu but represented Madhya Pradesh in the Rajya Sabha. His term ran until 2030. [1]
• The BJP has enough strength in the M.P. Assembly that a party candidate is expected to win the vacated seat. That candidate could then be brought into the Council of Ministers. [1]
• BJP sources said a reshuffle may take place before Deepavali. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional basis: Article 75 contains the "other provisions as to Ministers" for the Union. Article 164 is the matching provision for the States. [2][5]
• 2003: 91st Constitutional Amendment added clause (1A) to Article 75. It caps the total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, at 15% of the total membership of the Lok Sabha. [2]
• Rationale: The Statement of Objects and Reasons said many governments had been forming "abnormally large" councils of ministers, and that this practice should be banned by law. [2]
• States: Article 164(1A) applies the same 15% cap to State councils of ministers, with a minimum of 12 ministers. [5]
• 2026: The Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 were introduced. PRS notes that if the Lok Sabha grows from 543 to 815 seats, the permitted Union Council of Ministers would grow from 81 to 122. [3][4]
• 2026 vacancies: MoS George Kurian and Ravneet Singh Bittu resigned earlier in 2026 when their Rajya Sabha terms ended. Over the summer, Dharmendra Pradhan was forced to resign as Education Minister. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Provision governing Union Ministers	Article 75 [2]
Size cap (Union)	Total Ministers incl. PM ≤ 15% of Lok Sabha strength, under Art. 75(1A) [2]
Amendment that inserted the cap	91st Constitutional Amendment, 2003 [2]
State equivalent	Article 164(1A): 15% of Assembly strength, minimum 12 [5]
Current permissible Union ministry	81 (15% of 543) [3][4]
Post-delimitation permissible ministry (if Lok Sabha = 815)	122 [3][4]
Murugan's post	MoS, Parliamentary Affairs [1]
Murugan's Rajya Sabha state	Madhya Pradesh (home state: Tamil Nadu); term to 2030 [1]
Education Ministry (current)	Held as additional charge by Pralhad Joshi (Consumer Affairs Minister) [1]
Vacant ministerial posts (approx.)	At least six [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The 15% cap counts the PM as well. It sets a maximum only; there is no minimum for the Union (compare Art. 164(1A), which sets a floor of 12 for States). [2][5]
• Ministers who sit in the Rajya Sabha must keep their parliamentary seats, so the end of a Rajya Sabha term directly affects who can stay in the ministry. The resignations of Kurian and Bittu when their terms ended show this. [1]
• Delimitation raises a question PRS has flagged: should a larger Lok Sabha automatically mean a proportionally larger Council of Ministers? [3][4]

Governance / Administrative

• Additional charges pile up: Education is held by the Consumer Affairs Minister. This can dilute ministerial attention and accountability in a major social-sector ministry. [1]
• With six or more posts vacant, the government is running below its sanctioned ministerial strength. Reshuffles are timed around Rajya Sabha election cycles. [1]

Political / Federal

• Rajya Sabha seats are often used to bring in ministers from states other than their own. Murugan (from Tamil Nadu, elected from M.P.) is an example. This raises the debate over the Rajya Sabha's role as the Council of States representing state interests. [1]
• Party and government roles overlap: MoS Pankaj Chaudhary and Harsh Malhotra were made BJP state unit chiefs (U.P. and Delhi) and may resign. BJP sources say "nothing has been finalised yet". [1]

Electoral / Parliamentary

• Rajya Sabha terms of Union Ministers Hardeep Singh Puri and B.L. Verma end in November 2026. The BJP gained eight new Rajya Sabha members from U.P. and one each from West Bengal and Uttarakhand. [1]

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• Early to mid-2026: MoS George Kurian and Ravneet Singh Bittu resigned as their Rajya Sabha terms ended. [1]
• Summer 2026: Dharmendra Pradhan resigned as Education Minister. Pralhad Joshi holds the post as additional charge. [1]
• 2026: The Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 were introduced. They imply a Lok Sabha of up to 815 seats and a ministry cap of 122. [3][4]
• 13 October 2026: L. Murugan resigned as MoS and as a Rajya Sabha member from M.P. [1]
• November 2026 (upcoming): Rajya Sabha terms of Hardeep Singh Puri and B.L. Verma end. [1]
• Before Deepavali 2026 (expected): Possible Union Cabinet reshuffle, according to BJP sources. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• The cap on the size of the Union Council of Ministers is in Article 75(1A). [2]
• It was inserted by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003. [2]
• The 15% limit includes the Prime Minister. [2]
• The limit is measured against the Lok Sabha's total membership, not both Houses together. [2]
• Article 164(1A): State ministries are capped at 15% of the Assembly, with a minimum of 12 ministers. [5]
• The Union has no minimum ministry size; only the States have a floor of 12. [2][5]
• Permissible Union ministry today: 81; with a Lok Sabha of 815: 122. [3][4]
• The stated purpose of the 91st Amendment was to stop "abnormally large" councils of ministers. [2]
• The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 is part of the Delimitation Bills of 2026. [4]
• L. Murugan was MoS for Parliamentary Affairs and a Rajya Sabha MP from Madhya Pradesh. [1]

8. Why the 15% Cap Still Allows a Large Ministry

• Parliament chose a looser limit than its own expert body suggested
• The NCRWC (National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2000–02) asked for a cap of 10% on the number of Ministers at the Union and in the States [6].
• The 91st Amendment fixed the cap at 15% instead [2][6].

• Today that gap is worth about 27 Ministers: 10% of 543 is about 54, while 15% is 81.

• The cap is a ceiling, not a target, but it gets used like one

• Article 75(1A) only sets an upper limit [2]. Nothing in it asks how many Ministers the work of government actually needs.

• So the debate is about filling vacant posts, not about whether they need filling. The current talk is about refilling at least six posts [1].

• Other democracies run large economies with far smaller executives

• PRS points out that the US Cabinet has only 22 department and agency heads [7].

• India's permitted Union ministry is 81 today, and could be 122 after delimitation [3][4].

• The cap counts only Ministers. Other posts with ministerial perks are not counted

• The NCRWC also wanted all political offices that carry ministerial perks limited to 2% of the House [6].
• That part was never adopted. This left room for the workaround in the next section.

9. How States Got Around the Cap: Parliamentary Secretaries

• What a Parliamentary Secretary is
• A legislator appointed to help in a department. Often has the rank of a Minister of State and the same entitlements [8].

• Because the person is not formally a "Minister", the post sits outside the 15% count in Article 164(1A).

• How widely it was used

• Such posts were used in Manipur, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Assam, Rajasthan, Punjab and Goa [8].

• Punjab appointed 20 Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and Haryana 11 [8].

• Courts treated it as a way around the amendment

• Himachal Pradesh High Court (2005), Citizen Rights Protection Forum v. Union of India: quashed the appointments and called the appointees "usurpers of public office" [8].

• Bombay High Court (2009), Aires Rodrigues v. State of Goa: held that Parliamentary Secretaries with Cabinet rank violate Article 164(1A) [8].

• Why this matters for the Union

• A numerical cap works only if it also covers posts that look like ministerial posts under another name.
• The NCRWC's 2% limit on such offices was meant to close this gap. It was left out [6].

10. Should a Bigger Lok Sabha Mean More Ministers?

• The strongest case for a larger ministry
• A Lok Sabha of 815 means many more constituencies and voters [3].
• Governments use the ministry to give each region and community a voice at the top. More MPs can fairly mean more regions asking for that voice.

• Keeping the cap at 15% simply keeps the same ratio that Parliament agreed to in 2003 [2][7].

• What is right about it

• Representation in the ministry matters in a diverse country. A frozen number would get harder to balance as the House grows.

• Why it still does not settle the question

• The work of government does not grow with the number of seats. A ministry's size should depend on how many departments need running, not on how many MPs are elected. PRS asks exactly this: does a larger House need a proportionately larger ministry [7]?
• More Ministers means fewer MPs left to question the government. Ministers are bound by collective responsibility (they must publicly back every Cabinet decision). So every MP made a Minister stops acting as a check on the executive.

• Ordinary MPs already lose out in a bigger House. PRS notes that each MP will get less time to speak, and is less likely to be picked in the ballot for questions [7]. A ministry of 122 adds to this tilt towards the executive.

• Fair conclusion

• The 81-to-122 jump is automatic only because the cap is written as a percentage [3][4]. Parliament can choose a different formula while it debates the 131st Amendment Bill. It should make that choice openly, not by default.

11. How the Rajya Sabha Became a Route into the Ministry

• The law stopped requiring a Rajya Sabha member to live in the state they represent
• Until 2003, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 required a Rajya Sabha candidate to be a resident of that state.

• The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2003 changed "in that State" to "in India" [9].

• The Supreme Court upheld this change

• In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), the petitioner argued that the change damaged federalism, a basic feature of the Constitution [9].
• The Court held that residence was never a requirement in Article 80(4) (which deals with how state Assemblies elect Rajya Sabha members). It came from an ordinary law, which Parliament could change [9].

• So a leader from Tamil Nadu can sit for Madhya Pradesh, as Murugan did, with no legal problem [1].

• The result: a seat in the Council of States works like a ministerial berth

• A party with a majority in a state Assembly can place a Minister from any state into a safe seat [1].

• Ministers then come and go with the Rajya Sabha cycle, not with their performance. Kurian and Bittu left office when their terms ended [1].

• A finer constitutional point

• Article 75(5) lets a non-member stay a Minister for up to six months without a seat in Parliament [2].
• So losing a seat does not force a Minister out at once. Murugan resigned from both posts together, which points to a political decision, not a legal one.

12. What Parliament Could Do During the Delimitation Debate

• Parliament should look again at the NCRWC's 10% ratio
• The 131st Amendment Bill already changes the Lok Sabha's size [4]. This is the natural moment to decide on purpose what the ministry cap should be.

• At 10% of 815, the cap would be about 81, which is the size allowed today [6][3]. A House 50% bigger would then come with no bigger ministry.

• Parliament should bring posts with ministerial rank under the cap

• Adopting the NCRWC's 2% limit on other political offices with ministerial perks would close the Parliamentary Secretary route [6][8].

• High Courts have struck such posts down case by case [8]. A clear constitutional rule would end the need for repeated lawsuits.

• The Union government should put a time limit on additional charge

• The Allocation of Business Rules (which decide which Minister handles which subject) could set a maximum period, after which a full-time Minister must be appointed.
• This would stop a major ministry like Education being handled part-time while posts stay vacant [1].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Permitted Union ministry is 81 today (15% of 543) and would be 122 if the Lok Sabha grows to 815 [3][4]; the US Cabinet has 22 department and agency heads [7]
• Data: Punjab appointed 20 and Haryana 11 Chief Parliamentary Secretaries, outside the ministry cap [8]
• Report/Committee: NCRWC (Venkatachaliah Commission, 2002): ministry cap of 10% and a 2% cap on other offices with ministerial perks [6]
• Law/Case: Article 75(1A) and 164(1A) (91st Amendment, 2003) [2][5]; Article 75(5), six-month window for non-members [2]; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), which upheld removing the domicile rule for the Rajya Sabha [9]; Citizen Rights Protection Forum (HP HC, 2005) and Aires Rodrigues v. State of Goa (Bombay HC, 2009), which struck down Parliamentary Secretary posts [8]
• Comparison: United States: an executive of 22 department and agency heads, a fixed number that does not grow with the size of Congress [7]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity. Covers Parliament and State Legislatures (structure, functioning) and the Executive (structure and organisation of the Union government, ministries).
• GS-II: Federalism. Covers the representative character of the Rajya Sabha.
• Possible question stems: 1. The 91st Constitutional Amendment sought to curb jumbo ministries. Assess its effectiveness, and consider whether delimitation-linked expansion of the Lok Sabha should automatically enlarge the Council of Ministers. (15 marks) 2. Ministers increasingly enter Parliament through the Rajya Sabha from states other than their own. Examine the implications for the federal character of the Council of States. (10 marks) 3. Holding key portfolios as 'additional charge' for long periods weakens ministerial responsibility. Discuss. (10 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Articles 74 and 75: Council of Ministers to aid and advise; collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha.
• Article 164 and State ministries: The parallel 15% cap and the minimum of 12.
• Tenth Schedule (anti-defection): The 91st Amendment, 2003 also changed the Tenth Schedule; study the two changes together.
• Rajya Sabha elections (Art. 80, STV): How a party's Assembly strength decides who wins a vacated seat.
• Delimitation 2026 / 131st Amendment Bill: Its link to Lok Sabha size and the ministry cap. [3][4]
• Cabinet Secretariat and Allocation of Business Rules: The mechanics of portfolios and additional charge.
• Office of Profit and the role of party organisation vs government: Relevant to ministers being made party state chiefs.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Limit on size of Council of Ministers (Polity): The 15% cap on ministry size under Article 75(1A) is the article's main constitutional hook.
• Council of Ministers (Polity): Murugan's resignation leaves vacancies in this body, and a reshuffle would refill it.
• Rajya Sabha (Polity): Murugan quit his Rajya Sabha seat from Madhya Pradesh, so he could no longer remain a minister.
• Delimitation (Polity): A larger Lok Sabha after delimitation would raise the permitted ministry size from 81 to 122.
• 91st Constitutional Amendment Act 2003 (Polity): This amendment introduced the 15% ministry cap and is a likely prelims question.
• Rules of Business (Polity): These rules govern how portfolios are allocated, including additional charge such as Education being held by another minister.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Including Rajya Sabha strength when calculating the 15% cap. The base is the Lok Sabha only. [2]
• Leaving out the PM from the 15% count. The PM is included. [2]
• Wrong amendment: The cap came from the 91st (2003), not the 42nd, 44th or 97th. [2]
• Assuming the Union also has a minimum of 12. That floor applies only to the States under Art. 164(1A). [5]
• Assuming Rajya Sabha MPs must represent their home state. Murugan, from Tamil Nadu, represented M.P. [1]