Press Release: Analysis of Sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs in India with Dynastic Political Backgrounds
ADR India
Date: September 12, 2025
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) have a comprehensive analysis of sitting Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and Member of Legislative Council (MLCs) in India who hail from political families. The data includes a total of 5204 sitting legislators across State Assemblies, the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, and State Legislative Councils. Among them, 1107 (21%) sitting members have dynastic backgrounds. Dynastic politics remains a cornerstone of Indian democracy, affecting about 1 in 5 sitting members.
For the complete reports in English and Hindi, please see: https://adrindia.org/content/Analysis-of-Sitting-MPs-and-MLAs-who-have-dynastic-background
Dynastic politics in India refers to the practice where political power is concentrated within families, with multiple members from the same family holding elected positions or influential roles in politics. It involves the transfer of political influence, seats, or leadership from one generation to another, often leveraging family name, wealth, and networks. Dynastic politics has been a persistent feature of Indian democracy since independence. It often stems from factors like party stability, historical leadership patterns, limited inner-party democracy, and voter preferences rooted in familiarity with established names. While it provides continuity and leverages family networks, it raises concerns about meritocracy, accountability, and equitable representation.
In the Indian context, legislators with dynastic backgrounds are identified by examining their familial ties to current or former elected officials, political leaders, or influential party figures. We rely on the following criteria/sources of information:
- Family Connections: Legislators are considered dynastic if
they have immediate or extended family members (e.g., parents, siblings,
spouse, children or relatives) who have held or are holding elected
positions (MP, MLA, MLC) or significant party roles. There are also several cases in which politicians place their
family members—such as sons, daughters, or other relatives—in influential
government roles, corporations, PSUs or other similar entities which
fall outside the scope of this report. There are many politicians
with dynastic backgrounds who are currently not MPs/MLAs/MLCs due to
losing elections, but are still active in the political domain. Thus, the
report may not be treated as an exhaustive study.
- Self-Reported
Data: Analysis
relies on affidavits submitted by candidates to the Election Commission of
India, which include details of family background, political affiliations,
and prior elected roles of relatives.
- Historical
Records:
Cross-referencing with electoral records and party histories to confirm
familial political involvement, especially in cases of prominent political
families.
- Information in Public Domain: Incorporating media reports, biographies, or voter perceptions to identify family-based political influence, particularly for regional or unrecognized parties.
National Overview of MPs, MLAs and MLCs with Dynastic Backgrounds
|
Elections |
Total Number of Sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs Analysed |
Total Number of MPs, MLAs and MLCs with Dynastic Backgrounds |
% of Dynastic Background |
|
State Assembly Elections -MLAs |
4091 |
816 |
20% |
|
Lok Sabha Elections - MPs |
543 |
167 |
31% |
|
Rajya Sabha Elections - MPs |
224 |
47 |
21% |
|
State Legislative Council Elections - MLCs |
346 |
77 |
22% |
|
Total |
5204 |
1107 |
21% |
State
Wise MPs, MLAs and MLCs with Dynastic Backgrounds
When we look at larger states in terms of proportion, Andhra Pradesh has the highest share of dynastic representation, with 86 (34%) out of 255 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs coming from political families. This is followed by Maharashtra, where 129 (32%) out of 403 MPs, MLAs and MLCs have dynastic background and Karnataka, 94 (29%) out of 326 MPs, MLAs and MLCs having dynastic backgrounds. These figures highlight the continued and widespread prevalence of dynastic politics, particularly in politically significant states.
Regional Patterns:
- North India: High in Uttar Pradesh (23%, 141 dynastic) and Rajasthan (18%, 43 dynastic).
- South India: Elevated in Karnataka (29%, 94 dynastic) and Andhra Pradesh (34%, 86 dynastic).
- East/Northeast: Varied, with Bihar at 27% (96 dynastic) but Assam at 9% (13 dynastic).
Party Wise MPs, MLAs and MLCs with Dynastic Backgrounds
National Parties:
Among the national parties, 3,214 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs have been analyzed and 657 (20%) having dynastic backgrounds. INC has 32% of the sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs are from dynastic backgrounds followed by BJP with 18%, while smaller parties such as the CPI(M) show minimal dynastic influence, with only 8% of their sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs are from dynastic backgrounds.
State Parties: Among state parties, 1,809 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs have been analyzed and 406 (22%) having dynastic backgrounds. Parties like NCP-Sharadchandra Pawar (42%), JKNC (42%), YSRCP (38%), TDP (36%) and NCP (34%) exhibit strong dynastic tendencies, often rooted in regional family dynasties. Conversely, AITC (10%) and AIADMK (4%) have lower rates, possibly due to charismatic non-dynastic leadership. The Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal (United), Asom Gana Parishad and Rashtriya Janata Dal also exhibit high dynastic influence, with nearly 30% or more of their elected representatives being from political families.
Unrecognised Parties:
These smaller entities have the highest dynastic rate as 21(24%) out of 87 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs analysed were found having dynastic backgrounds. Many have 100% dynastic members, likely because they are family-run or niche outfits with just 1-2 members. There are 9 parties having all MPs, MLAs and MLCs from dynastic backgrounds.
Independent:
23(24%) out of 94 sitting independent MPs, MLAs and MLCs analysed have dynastic political backgrounds. This reflects a moderate level of dynasticism, likely driven by politicians capitalizing on family networks while operating outside formal party structures.
Gender Wise MPs,
MLAs and MLCs with Dynastic Backgrounds
State-Wise Dynastic Backgrounds Among Sitting MPs, MLAs, and MLCs (Male vs. Female):
- Dynastic rates for females exceed males in nearly all states with female representation (e.g., Maharashtra: 69% female vs. 28% male; Andhra Pradesh: 69% female vs. 29% male); Bihar: 57% female vs. 22% male); Telangana: 64% female vs. 21% male).
- States/UTs with 100% female dynastic rates include Goa (3 out of 3), Puducherry (1 out of 1) and Dadra Nagar Haveli and Daman Diu (1 out of 1).
- Highest dynastic females: Uttar Pradesh 29(42%) are dynastic out of 69, Maharashtra 27(69%) out of 39, Bihar 25(57%) out of 44, Andhra Pradesh 20(69%) out of 29.
- Lowest dynastic rates: West Bengal (28% female, 5% male), reflecting possibly less family-centric politics.
- Broader Context: With women comprising only 10% of analyzed MPs, MLAs and MLCs, the high dynastic rate among them highlights potential inequalities in political access.
Party-Wise Dynastic Backgrounds Among Sitting MPs, MLAs, and MLCs (Male vs. Female):
Female dynastic rates exceed male rates in nearly all parties with female members (e.g., INC: 53% female vs. 29% male). Parties with 100% female dynasticism include NCP, Asom Gana Parishad, Lok Janshakti Party, SAD, All India N.R. Congress, Kuki Peoples Alliance and Revolutionary Marxist Party of India.
- Gender Disparity: Females consistently show higher dynastic rates (e.g., TDP: 77% female vs. 30% male; SP: 67% female vs. 24% male); JD(U): 75% female vs. 23% male); RJD: 60% female vs. 28% male), indicating family networks may be more critical for women.
- Major Parties: BJP has the greatest number of female MPs, MLAs and MLCs from dynastic backgrounds: 91(41%) females vs. 280(15%) males, followed by INC with 46(53%) females vs. 212 (29%) males MPs, MLAs and MLCs from dynastic backgrounds.
- Small Parties: High female percentages often result from small samples (e.g., SAD: 100% with 2 females). Regional parties like JKNC and NCP show strong dynasticism.
- Low Dynastic Parties: Left-leaning CPI(M) (38% female, 5% male) and AAP (15% female, 11% male) have lower rates, possibly due to ideological focus.
Observations:
- Large states with strong party organizations (like Tamil Nadu, 15% and West Bengal, 9%) show lower dynasticism compared to smaller or mid-sized states (e.g., Jharkhand, 28%, Himachal Pradesh, 27%). This suggests that cadre-based or ideological parties (DMK, AIADMK, Left, TMC) may dilute dynastic entry more effectively than regional family-run outfits.
- Female dynastic prevalence (47%) being much higher than males (18%) indicates that women’s entry is systemically mediated by family connections. In states like Jharkhand (73% of women dynastic) and Maharashtra (69%), nearly all women in politics rely on family networks. This shows that while dynasticism opens doors for women, it simultaneously limits space for first-generation non-dynastic female politicians.
- Left-wing and newer reformist parties (CPI(M), AAP) have lowest dynasticism, aligning with their ideological positioning against elitism. By contrast, “social justice” or caste-based regional parties (SP, RJD, JD(U)) exhibit 30–40% dynasticism.
- Dynastic representation is higher in the Lok Sabha (31%) than in State Assemblies (20%). This suggests that national-level visibility and prestige are more tightly controlled by established political families, while state politics allows somewhat more entry to outsiders.
- 'The report’s numbers suggest that dynasticism is not merely about “inheritance of seats,” but a structural feature across geographies, parties, and genders. High rates among women and unrecognized parties imply dynastic politics is a mechanism of political entry and survival, not just legacy preservation.
- The report’s data shows that dynastic politics is not evenly spread — it thrives in smaller states/UTs, women’s representation, and national-level offices, while cadre-based ideological parties act as partial checks. It is as much about access to politics as it is about continuity of family power.
- The early signs of dynastic rule started appearing in national and regional politics in the 1970s in the realm of both party organisation and the representative institutions.
- Dynastic politics divides the society by creating a birth based ruling class. The prevalence of dynastic politics is also attributed to India’s strong family traditions that justify dynasts in the eyes of voters. In India, it’s widely thought to be natural and acceptable for a father or a mother who has any form of power to want to hand it over to a son or a daughter.
- The status, functioning and role played by political parties has also led to the persistent presence of dynasties in Indian politics. India’s political parties habitually give dynastic contenders a leg-up in the ticket allocation process without any fear of public audit or inspection. These instances repeatedly happen because of lack of internal democracy within parties, lack of criteria or qualification for ticket distribution, no law dealing with the regulation or functioning of parties, parties’ refusal to come under RTI law thereby leading to a complete lack of public accountability.
- Voter dissatisfaction, dynast’s relative wealth, dynastic incumbent, reserved constituency, key powerful position within party structure are some of the factors that significantly increase political party’s preferences for dynasts. In this context, dynastic politics not only impacts the right to equal political opportunity and electoral competitiveness but such a system of choosing potential leaders within families leads to an unfair and unequal representation within the party as well as the electorate. This also impacts internal democracy within parties leading to weak organisation of political parties.
- Another reason behind the hegemony of political dynasties over the Indian political system lies in the way our political contestants’ function before, during and after the elections. The Indian political system primarily functions on one major factor i.e ‘winnability’. The whole ecosystem of our elections relies on ‘money’ and ‘muscle power’ in one way or the other. Unprecedented, unequal and unregulated campaigning during elections has become a norm. This can only be achieved through candidates who have money-muscle nexus. Elections have become so expensive that they are beyond any ordinary citizen’s reach unless they have powerful patrons or the backing of a large party. Voters also make their choices depending on what they can expect from which party i.e someone who gets things done whether dynast, moneyed or muscle power. The political parties also prefer to practise patronage politics as a way to ensure loyalty and to meet voter demands rather than act as agents of structural change. The existing 10th schedule i.e the Anti Defection Law can also at times may punish an elected legislator who crosses the party line or loyalty.
- In cases with more than one claimant for the top post male siblings are often preferred for the leadership role.
Recommendations:
A comprehensive law on political parties functioning: There is a need to have a comprehensive law to deal with the functioning and regulation of political parties which includes internal elections, mandatory secret ballot voting for all elections for all inner party posts, selection of candidates by the registered members overseen by ECI, criteria for ticket distribution, total number of tickets allocated to women candidates within party etc, sanctions, civil and criminal liability in cases of contravention etc
Strengthen internal democracy in political parties: Enforce transparent candidate selection processes, encouraging merit and grassroots experience rather than family ties. Mandate internal elections in parties to dilute family dominance.
Mandate on Political Parties on women candidates: Every registered political party should be legally mandated to give one third of the total number of party tickets it distributes at every election to women candidates.
Selecting women candidates based on merit: Political parties should only give tickets to worthy women candidates based on their merit and credibility. Parties should refrain from giving tickets to the candidates based on money, muscle and family background/political dynasty which only ends up making women as a proxy law-makers thereby defeating the whole purpose of gender equality and role of women in key policy making.
Women’s tokenistic inclusion: This implies male party leaders selecting women candidates that they can control from behind the scenes. This could be in the form of a defeated or behind the bars male politician making women of their house as their proxy. This leads to close space for dissent, free decision making amongst women leaders and concentration of power in the hands of one or few powerful male politician(s).
Regulate candidate selection & funding: Election Commission could encourage parties to publicly disclose selection criteria for candidates. This information can be availed through the ECI’s website and website of all political parties contesting elections. Stricter oversight on party financing, as dynastic candidates often inherit financial networks that create unfair advantages.
Implement ceiling on expenses of political parties during election period: There should be a limit on election expenditure incurred by parties during elections. This will not only ensure free and fair elections along with level playing field among political contestants but providing a threshold limit on political parties spending will also ensure equal opportunity, healthy competition and will force parties to look beyond money and patronage politics and focus on more worthy, credible and deserving leaders.
Parties under RTI Act: Parties need to come under the ambit of RTI law so that citizens can seek direct answers from their favoured political party or leader for the kind of candidates being fielded by parties during elections including a non-deserving dynast.
Promote political diversity & inclusion: Provide capacity-building programs and mentorship for young leaders, especially women, from non-political backgrounds. Encourage civil society and educational institutions to cultivate political participation among the general public.
Gender-Sensitive Reforms: Reservation of seats for women (as envisaged in the Women’s Reservation Bill) should be accompanied by measures ensuring opportunities for non-dynastic women leaders, to prevent dominance by political families.
Public awareness & voter education: Educate voters about the impact of dynasticism on accountability and governance, encouraging more informed electoral choices.
Association for Democratic Reforms/ National Election Watch
|
Media and Journalist Helpline
Email: a...@adrindia.org |
Maj.Gen. Anil Verma (Retd) Head Association for Democratic Reforms, National Election Watch 011 4165 4200, a...@adrIndia.org, |
Prof Trilochan Sastry IIM Bangalore (Retd.) Founder Member, Association for Democratic Reforms, National Election Watch |
(Near Gulmohar Commercial Complex)
Gautam Nagar
New Delhi-110 049
Support Us By Donating 
