Opposition without a head

A strength of 10 per cent of the House is necessary to formally lead the opposition.
Written by Subhash C Kashyap | May 21, 2014 8:16 am
While an effective opposition is as necessary as a functioning government for the
success of parliamentary democracy, in the 16th Lok Sabha, the opposition stands badly
fragmented. Having been reduced to a dismal, below-50 seat tally, the main party in
opposition, the Congress, is not even entitled to have its leader recognised as leader of
the opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The well-established principle and practice, right from the first Lok Sabha, has been that
the leader of the largest party in opposition is recognised as leader of the opposition,
provided the party has the number of seats required to constitute a sitting of the House.
That is, at minimum, the partys seat share should be one-tenth of the total membership,
the same as the quorum fixed for a sitting of the House.
Between 1952 and 1969, there was no opposition party with the requisite strength and,
therefore, there was no officially recognised leader of the opposition, even though some
outstanding personalities occupied the opposition benches and led their parties during
this period. In 1969, in the fourth Lok Sabha, following the split in the Congress, the
leader of the Congress (O), Ram Subhag Singh, became the first person to be formally
recognised and given the status of leader of the opposition. During the sixth Lok Sabha
(1977-80), we had Y.B. Chavan, C.M. Stephen and Jagjivan Ram as successive leaders
of the opposition. Again, during the seventh and eighth Lok Sabhas (1980-1989), no
party in opposition had the requisite strength. During subsequent Lok Sabhas (ninth to
15th), covering the period 1989 to 2014, we had duly recognised leaders of the
opposition, including Rajiv Gandhi, L.K. Advani, A.B. Vajpayee, P.V. Narasimha Rao,
Sharad Pawar, Sonia Gandhi and Sushma Swaraj.
Until 1977, there was no emolument or salary attached to the office of leader of the
opposition. After the sixth general election in 1977, which brought in the Janata Party
government, the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act was
passed. The act extends to leaders of the opposition in both Houses a certain official
status and facilities, including a salary, allowances and perks equivalent to a cabinet
minister.
The 1977 act defines the leader of the opposition as that member of the Rajya Sabha or
Lok Sabha who leads the opposition party with the greatest numerical strength and is
recognised as such by the presiding officer of the House. Although the definition in the
act does not spell out the 10 per cent membership requirement, it is clearly implied in the
recognition condition. For the Lok Sabha, the criteria for a party to be recognised as the
opposition, laid down in Direction 121(c), is that it should at least have a strength equal
to the quorum fixed to constitute a sitting of the House, that is one-tenth of the total
number of members of the House.
In the 16th Lok Sabha, it seems there shall be several leaders in the opposition heading
their respective parties in the House but no officially recognised leader of the opposition.
While it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the speaker to extend to opposition leaders
privileges like office accommodation on Parliament premises, some secretarial
assistance, preference in the seating arrangement of the House and speaking time
during proceedings, etc, he cannot legitimately waive or dilute the requirement of 10 per
cent membership. Also, if any effort is made by parties to form an alliance to constitute
more than 10 per cent of the House and elect a leader to get around the requirement, it
would be most unacceptable and may amount to defrauding the public exchequer.
It is being asked what would happen to the laws, rules and conventions that outline a
role for the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha in selection committees for the
appointments of the CVC, CBI chief, Lokpal etc. It should be quite clear that the
concerned provisions would have to be modified to provide for the eventuality of there
being no recognised leader of the opposition. Till such modifications are made, the slot
for the leader of the opposition would remain vacant and the concerned bodies would
function with the other members.
Last, it is important to remember that the parliamentary system works largely on
precedents and established practices. In the 62 years since the first Lok Sabha came
into being, a leader of a party with a strength of less than 10 per cent of the total
membership has never been designated leader of the opposition. The roots of the 10 per
cent membership requirement can be traced to the British parliamentary system, where
the leader of the opposition is supposed to head the shadow cabinet. The leader of the
opposition has to be in a position to make the sitting of the House, and if need be,
provide an alternative government. It is for that reason that he is paid a salary and
allowances from public funds and it is for the same reason that he must satisfy the
condition of being the leader of an opposition party which has at least 10 per cent of the
members of the House on its rolls.
express@expressindia.com