Speculation about a change of personnel at the level of ministers is not unusual before a session of Parliament. The way things stand, however, it appears unlikely that the government will be reinvigorated by any change of ministerial personnel. In the Cabinet system, a Prime Minister may take recourse to chopping and changing

ministers or reallocate portfolios within the existing setup in order to inject efficiency, or in response to political compulsions if particular party factions have to be appeased or put in their place, or to fill vacancies if a minister has fallen by the wayside. In the British model of Cabinet governance — which we broadly follow — a Cabinet reshuffle is also an instrument in the hands of the Prime Minister to keep his Cabinet colleagues in line. However, since the dawn of the coalition era in New Delhi, the traditional reasons for the Prime Minister to make changes in his council of ministers do not strictly apply.
Nowadays, the Prime Minister no longer picks his Cabinet colleagues according to his own lights but must accommodate as ministers MPs of parties that are part of the government in line with the wishes of the leaders of those parties. To complicate matters, as the price of support, coalition partners of a major party have even come to dictate what portfolios they want for their nominees in the government. This state of affairs has come about because the electorate of late is not voting any one party in with sufficient numbers to be able to form its own government, as in the past. This is partly the result of the changing social, economic and political dynamics in the country which for long has not permitted any one party to have enough of a nationwide sway to be able to command a parliamentary majority of its own. It is this which makes coalition governments a compulsion of our times, and this severely circumscribes the Prime Minister.
In this scenario, the only real manoeuvrability a government leader may enjoy is primarily with his own party within the framework of a coalition, unless in a given political climate he is also able to dictate terms to an ally. (The latter aspect came into play recently when A. Raja of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was made to resign as communications minister.) In the case of the present Prime Minister, there is a further complication. Even within his own party he is not entirely free to choose his Cabinet colleagues and must pay close attention to the wishes of the Congress leadership.
These days the government is being buffeted on account of inflation and multiple corruption cases. It is unlikely that a change of personnel will help settle issues such as these. No particular Congress minister — whom the party may change at will — is being thought to be grossly inefficient or stung by corruption. So the efficiency argument or the idea of having taint-free ministers are not relevant considerations. Perhaps the government should wait to get over its present difficulties through appropriate policy moves and parliamentary action in relation to the Opposition, regain its composure as a governing entity, and then think of a meaningful Cabinet reshuffle. Of course, some fresh blood can be inducted even now by reducing the burden of some ministers.