In 1928, a year after the Parliament House was inaugurated, Sir Edwin Lutyens, the architect of India’s capital city, envisioned a new building that would be its mirror image. It was to be constructed at a stone’s throw from the original structure (designed by his partner Sir Herbert Baker) and would house the Parliament Secretariat.
Almost 90 years later, Lutyens’s proposal is being talked about again, as the Parliament House is facing an existential crisis. There are questions about the iconic structure being able to carry on and there is talk of the need for a new Parliament building. The reasons being mentioned range from wear and tear and the difficulties of functioning out of a heritage building, to the impending revision of the strength of the Lok Sabha in 2026.
In fact, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan wrote to Union Urban Development Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu last year proposing a new Parliament complex. In its response, the Centre has said it concurs with her.
She wrote about the Parliament building suffering from “over-utilisation”. “At the time of commissioning of this building, the number of staff, security personnel, media visitors and parliamentary activities were limited. Over the years, the parliamentary activities and number of people working here and visitors have increased manifold.”
“On account of ageing of the Parliament House Building and expansion in activities, staff etc, the building has shown signs of distress and over-utilisation,” Mahajan wrote. The annexe and the library building, which were meant to provide the much needed office space, have not been sufficient.
Also, it being a heritage Grade-I building, there are severe limitations on repairs, alterations and modifications to the building. A senior official associated with maintenance of the building said it was extremely difficult to make functional changes, leave alone renovation. “There is very little time available for repair work or restoration. Only four to five months are available to carry out any work,” said the official. There is a heritage committee in Parliament and its permission has to be sought for every change, big and small.
Safety is also an issue. It first came into focus in 2009, when a part of the ceiling fell in room number 27, which was the office of the then petroleum minister Murli Deora. Another problem is that cooking is not permitted in the complex. The canteens in the building serve food that is cooked in the adjacent library building.
One of the sites proposed by Mahajan for a new Parliament House is the same spot where Lutyens wanted the mirror image of the historic structure to be built. The site, which is across the Rajpath from the current complex, has two plots of four hectares each. These plots at present house the defence and Delhi Police security barracks.
Another site being considered is the area that houses the Parliament reception, air conditioning plant, sub-station, temporary barracks for Parliament Duty Group personnel, and car park. Hinting at an inclination for the former, Mahajan said in her letter, “This area is a suitably large area and would enable a free design of a new Parliament House Building.” She has also suggested that a tunnel under the Rajpath can connect the two buildings.
An alternative being discussed is that the Rajya Sabha could be shifted to what is now the Lok Sabha, and the Central Hall could be converted into Lok Sabha. But then the question is where the joint sittings of the Parliament would be held.
Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P.D.T. Achary said that the structure of the Parliament was “quite solid”, but it would not be able to meet the growing demands of Indian democracy. “The present strength of the Lok Sabha is based on the 1971 census. If the numbers are revised based on the census of 2021, the number of MPs will go up [by at least 100],” he said.
In the discussions held in the speaker’s office, options considered included a building that is on the lines of the European Parliament, a modern building that is eco-friendly and relies on technology, but retains the heritage of the country in its architectural design.
So what happens to the present Parliament building? One suggestion is that it can be converted into a museum, and that some offices can continue to operate from there.
Former speaker Meira Kumar had also mooted the idea for a new Parliament building. She had said that the present building was “weeping” from overuse and structural deterioration. But she ran into opposition from the Left parties, which said it would impose unnecessary expenditure on the public exchequer.
The budget committee of Parliament, including deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha M. Thambidurai, public accounts committee chairman K.V. Thomas and estimates committee chairman Murli Manohar Joshi, has also suggested that a new Parliament building is needed.
“The new building has to be built keeping in mind the requirements of the next 100 years. It is now for the Lok Sabha speaker and the prime minister to start proper consultations,” said Thomas.
Noted conservation architect A.J.K. Menon said the need for more space was genuine. However, he said, it must be ensured that the building, which has a huge symbolic value, remained functional in some way.
However, there are others who advocate finding out ways of working from the present building. “The Parliament building represents our democratic ethos. There is no need for another building,” said Janata Dal (united) leader K.C. Tyagi. He said if the British parliamentarians could function out of Westminster, despite its cramped environs, so could the Indian MPs out of Sansad Bhawan.
The urban development ministry feels the issue would need a discussion amongst all the stakeholders, including the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha, the parliamentary affairs ministry and the prime minister’s office.
Left leader M.B. Rajesh said the priority should be how to strengthen Parliament as an institution rather than talking about the need for a new building. “The prime minister bypasses Parliament sessions. Crucial decisions are not announced in Parliament. More than the leakages and wear and tear, the threat to Parliament comes from this approach of the government,” he said.
