An Analysis of the Arguments for the 2010 Salary Increase for Indian Members of Parliament


  • Berenike Schott



In 2010, the Indian Members of Parliament increased their salaries threefold, invoking a controversial debate over the justification for the unprecedented hike. The Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament had proposed the increase based on the notion that MPs should earn more than the highest paid regular full-time civil servant whose salary had shortly before been increased – one symbolic rupee more. Yet, the reason why MPs should earn more was not made explicit in the debate. As the salary increase was not well received by the public, it is critical to dissect the argument and work out the possible Warrant structures supporting it. On that basis, the debate can move from unsupported Claims to more profound discussions about diverging visions for the role of MPs and principles guiding Indian society. This analysis is aimed at initiating such a needed turn in debate by reconstructing and evaluating the main arguments put forward for increasing the salary, namely that MPs should be compensated for the time-intensiveness of their work and that their salary should display their higher institutional status as compared to public secretaries.


IANS (2010, August 18). Public cold to MP salary hike proposal. Thaindian News. Accessed October 29, 2010,

Sanyal, K. (2010). Bill Summary: The Salary, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 2010. PRS Legislative Research. Accessed October 29, 2010,

The World Bank. Poverty and Equity Data – India. Accessed July 21, 2013

Shri Raashid Alvi MP. Rajya Sabha Debate, 220th Session, August 31, 2010, 4:20pm, accessed September 29, 2013,

The Salary, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, and the Rules made thereunder, M.S.A. No.18, May 2007, Section I, art.9, accessed July 21, 2013,

Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament – Constitution.

Accessed July 21, 2013,

Indian Central Pay Commission, Report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission March 2008, 43, accessed July 21, 2013,

Shri Sanjay Nirupam MP. Lok Sabha Debate, August 27, 2010, 3:29pm. Accessed September 29, 2013,

Waghmare, J. MP. Rajya Sabha Debate, August 31, 2010, 4:30pm. Accessed September 29,


Kapoor, C. (2010, August 19). For One Rupee More. Indian Express (Mumbai). Accessed July 21, 2013,

Shri Sanjay Nirupam MP. Lok Sabha Debate, August 27, 2010, 3:30pm. Accessed September 29, 2013 (Translation India, New Delhi).

Rosen, S. (1986). The Theory of Equalizing Differences. In O. Ashenfelter & R. Layard (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, pp. 641-692. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Kaufman, B., & Hotchkiss, J. (2003). Occupational Wage Differentials. In The Economics of Labor Markets, pp. 393-455. Louiseville, Canada: Thomson South-Western, Mason.

Feinberg, J. (1998). Justice and Personal Desert. In L. Pojman & O. McLeod (eds.), What do we deserve? A Reader on Justice and Desert, pp. 70-81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Olsaretti, S. (2003). Distributive Justice and Compensatory Desert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline. In G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds.), Interpretive Sociology, vol. 2, chapter 3, section 4. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Library of Congress Federal Research Division, India – Country Profile (Washington, December 2004). Accessed July 21, 2013,

Jayaraman, R. (2005). Personal Identity in a Globalized World: Cultural Roots of Hindu Personal Names and Surnames. The Journal of Popular Culture 38(3), 480.

Pal, S. (1999). An Analysis of Childhood Malnutrition in Rural India: Role of Gender, Income and Other Household Characteristics. World Development, 27(7), 1154.

The Constitution of India, Part III, art.15; Randeep Ramesh. Court doubles affirmative action in India’s colleges. The Guardian, April 11, 2008. Accessed July 21, 2013,

Emerging Market India. Accessed July 21, 2013,