Debate over a critical office

July 29, 2014 01:12 am | Updated November 16, 2021 07:14 pm IST

The >Attorney General’s opinion that the Congress is ineligible to claim the post of Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha as it does not have the requisite number of 55 members to be recognised as a Parliamentary Party is based on precedent established since the first Lok Sabha. But it may not be the last word on the question. That precedent was followed by the Congress itself when in power, and for >long periods in the history of the Lok Sabha there was no recognised leader of the opposition. The rationale was that the leader of the opposition being in line to form an alternative government should be able to hold the House with the required quorum of 10 per cent of its strength. The 10 per cent rule was established by G.V. Mavalankar and incorporated later in the Directions for the functioning of the Lok Sabha as Direction 121, though it did not mention the LoP as such. The 1998 law concerning the facilities to be given to leaders and whips of recognised parties and groups, which fixes 55 as the minimum number of members required for recognition as a Parliamentary Party in the lower House, does not mention the LoP either. It is the 1977 statute on the LoP’s salary that does so. And that definition says the LoP shall be the leader of the party in opposition with the greatest numerical strength and “recognised as such” by the Speaker. While the statute itself is silent on it, the question arises if the Speaker, while recognising the LoP, needs to go by parliamentary precedent and Direction 121.

It needs to be noted that after the anti-defection law in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution came into force, the system of recognising political parties in the legislature ended. Now, even a lone member elected on a party ticket is enough to form a legislature party. The constitutional provision will override any ‘Direction’, and it is debatable whether the Speaker’s decision on the recognition of a ‘Party’ or a ‘Group’ can any more be dependent on the 10 per cent norm. Further, there are recent laws that require the leader of the opposition to be part of selection panels for the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the Chief Information Commissioner, the Lokpal and the CBI Director. Some of the relevant Acts do say that where no person has been recognised as the LoP, the leader of the opposition party with the largest numerical strength may play that role. A recognised leader of the opposition is necessary for the proper and harmonious functioning of Parliament and for the working of several of the recently enacted laws. Legal ambiguity, the Congress party’s own flawed record and the BJP’s triumphalism over its rival’s poor electoral performance, should not stand in the way of an important parliamentary office being filled.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.