India in 2025 stands at a unique crossroads. With a population exceeding 1.4 billion, over 65% under the age of 35, the country is more youthful, urban, and digitally connected than ever before. Its ambitions are vast, from becoming a $5 trillion economy to leading the world in digital public infrastructure. Yet, the scale and diversity of India's challenges—persistent rural poverty, regional disparities, climate resilience, and the demands of global competitiveness—are unlike those faced by any other democracy.
This complexity makes it imperative to reconsider, from first principles, the size, structure, and quality of the Cabinet of Ministers. As Delhi buzzes with rumors of an imminent cabinet expansion, the question is not whether more ministers can be added, but whether they should and what that means for India's governance.
Numbers behind the Cabinet
The Council of Ministers has grown steadily: from 46 in 2014 to 58 in 2019 and now to 72 in 2024, just shy of the constitutional maximum of 81. The core Cabinet itself now numbers 31, up from 26 in 2014. This expansion is not merely arithmetic; it reflects the pressures of coalition politics, regional accommodation, and the need to balance competing interests. The current Cabinet draws from 18 states, up from just 10 in 2014, and features five non-BJP ministers, a clear sign of the NDA's coalition character in this term.
Representation, substance, and the youth imperative
Diversity is often cited as a justification for expansion. The Cabinet now includes 11 women (15%), a modest improvement, and ministers from a wide array of social and regional backgrounds. Yet, only eight ministers are under 45 an oddity in a nation where the median age is 29. India's future depends on harnessing its demographic dividend, and this cannot happen without a much larger, younger cohort at the highest levels of decision-making. As political scientist Suhas Palshikar notes, "Inclusion is only meaningful if it brings influence, not just presence." Too often, key portfolios remain the preserve of established power centers, limiting fresh thinking and generational renewal.
Fragmentation, accountability, and delivery
The proliferation of ministries has not always yielded better governance. Agriculture, rural development, panchayati raj, food processing, fertilizers, irrigation, and animal husbandry each have their own minister and bureaucracy. This fragmentation, intended to sharpen focus, too often leads to overlapping mandates and blurred accountability. India's 101st rank in the Global Hunger Index 2024 is a sobering reminder that more hands do not always make for lighter work.
Digital governance, a flagship of modern India, faces similar challenges. The Ministry of Electronics and IT shares its domain with Railways (digital ticketing), Finance (UPI), and Education (Digital India). India's 25th place in the UN E-Government Index 2024 is respectable, but it also reveals the cost of fragmented mandates. As Nandan Nilekani, architect of Aadhaar, has observed, "Digital transformation is not just about technology, but about reimagining processes and breaking silos." For India to accelerate technological and trade growth, it is vital that professionals with proven acumen in these fields are given governance roles people who can bridge the gap between innovation and policy, as seen in the success of technocrat-ministers in countries like Singapore and South Korea.
Professional maturity, public trust, and criminality
Of the 72 ministers, only five have significant domain expertise; the remainder are predominantly career politicians, with 39 having served three or more terms in Parliament and 18 lacking a graduate degree. The presence of 21 ministers facing criminal charges, including serious allegations, is a reality that cannot be ignored especially when public trust in institutions is at a premium. According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 44% of Lok Sabha MPs have criminal cases pending against them, a figure that raises questions about the standards of public life.
Decision-making, crisis management, and international lessons
If the Cabinet is content to simply mirror India's diversity without ensuring policy coherence and rapid, unified decision-making, the consequences are not abstract they are felt in every corner of governance. Fragmented mandates and a lack of clear leadership have repeatedly slowed India's crisis response, whether during the Kargil conflict, the Galwan standoff, Operation Sindur, the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, or in managing economic shocks and natural disasters. When ministries operate in silos, vital information and resources are trapped in bureaucratic bottlenecks, and the nation's ability to act decisively is compromised.
International examples of compact, focused cabinets such as the UK's 22 ministers, the US's 15, or Germany's 16 offer lessons in agility and accountability, but India's unmatched scale and heterogeneity mean that simply copying these models is not enough. As former Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramanian once remarked, "India needs not just a smaller cabinet, but a smarter one where every minister is both accountable and empowered."
Bureaucrats, Diplomats, and Army professionals as Ministers
The debate over inducting bureaucrats, diplomats, or military professionals as ministers is not new. On one hand, their expertise and administrative discipline can bring much-needed professionalism and crisis-management skills to governance. For example, former Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar's transition to External Affairs Minister was being lauded for enhancing India's diplomatic heft. Similarly, General V.K. Singh's tenure as Minister of State for External Affairs and Road Transport was mentioned for bringing operational rigor to both portfolios. However, the flip side is that such appointments can sometimes lead to a technocratic, top-down style that may not always align with the political acumen required for legislative negotiation and mass leadership skills that seasoned politicians often possess. The ideal cabinet blends both: domain experts for specialized portfolios, and politically savvy leaders for broad-based ministries.
Towards a De Novo approach
Frequent reshuffles, while sometimes politically necessary, can disrupt institutional memory and stall reforms. In times of crisis, a fragmented cabinet can slow response and blur accountability. The most effective executives are those where responsibility is clear, performance is measured, and leadership is stable.
Encouragingly, the government has made strides in regulatory reform, digital payments, and infrastructure development. The 2025 Union Budget's focus on agriculture, MSMEs, infrastructure, and digital skilling backed by a fiscal deficit target of 4.4% and a record ₹11.21 lakh crore in capital expenditure signals intent to drive growth and inclusion. Yet, these advances require an executive structure that supports, rather than hinders, coherent policy formulation and execution.
A 92nd Amendment could help by reaffirming the cap on cabinet size, mandating rational division of responsibilities, encouraging the induction of professionals, and embedding performance metrics into the heart of executive functioning. Structure, after all, should follow function not the other way around.
As rumors of expansion swirl, the government has an opportunity to reaffirm its founding promise. The true measure of a cabinet is not in its breadth, but in its depth its ability to deliver, to adapt, and to inspire confidence in those it serves. In governance, as in life, more is not always better. Sometimes, the greatest progress comes not from adding, but from refining; not from multiplying voices, but from clarifying purpose.
The promise of "less government, more governance" is not beyond reach. It simply requires the courage to revisit first principles, to value expertise and accountability, to empower a younger generation, and to remember that the ultimate test of any cabinet is not its size, but its service.
