No Leader of Opposition: Good for Democracy?

By Deepak Parvatiyar

August 25, 2014

In a parliamentary democracy, can we undermine the role of the Leader of Opposition (LoP)? By no means. Particularly in recent times, the LoP has evolved into a position of undisputed significance. Yet the absence of a LoP in the 16th Lok Sabha has rather brought into focus certain grey areas concerning the basic fundamentals behind the concept of the post. This revolves around the question on whether LoP is an absolute necessity or not in a parliamentary system.

No LoPs till 1969

It is a fact that more often than not, our Lok Sabha has worked without any LoP.  For the first time that the Lok Sabha had a LoP was in 1969 – full 22 years after we attained Independence – when Ram Subhag Singh of Indian National Congress (O) became the LoP for a period of one year when the Congress split and 60 of its MPs moved to the opposition benches.

What is even more peculiar is that until 1977, there was no such statutory mandate either for the LoP. The position received statutory recognition through the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 after Janata Party – a coalition of anti-Congress-anti-emergency forces, ousted the Congress from the Centre as fallout of the Emergency. Late YB Chavan of the Congress then became the LoP and was succeeded by CM Stephen and Jagjivan Ram in the sixth Lok Sabha (1977-80).

LoPs were conveniently sidetracked

So, isn’t it safe to assume that time and again the post of LoP was conveniently sidetracked in the name of established conventions and precedents whenever a single party (read the Congress) had the majority in Lok Sabha? The government with absolute majority was never prepared to cede institutional space to the Opposition?

Obviously there was no LoP despite the statutory provision when Indira Gandhi returned to power with absolute majority and ruled between 1980 and 1984. After her assassination, when the Congress swept the polls bagging 415 seats under her successor Rajiv Gandhi, the LoP issue was raised by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) – which with 30 seats was the largest Opposition party in Lok Sabha in 1984. However, the TDP was reminded of the precedent established by the first speaker, GV Mavalankar who framed rules in this regard in 1956, that LoP in Lok Sabha could not be designated to ‘too-small-an-Opposition’.

Coalition politics brought LoPs to prominence

It was only 1989 onwards – when coalition politics took centrestage – that the role of the LoP became more defining for obvious reasons. With vulnerable governments largely dependants on fragile coalition, very often the single largest parties sat in Opposition and the LoP navigated his/her party to make enough dents in the ruling coalition to change the political arithmetic of the country. (Remember when VP Singh formed the National Front government with the support of the BJP, Rajiv Gandhi was the LoP even though his Congress party was the largest party in Lok Sabha with 195 seats in 1989? When the VP Singh government fell because of the fragile nature of the coalition, Rajiv deftly lent outside support to Chandrasekhar to form the government that was totally dependent on the former).

Call this expedient politics and this cannot be just sheer coincidence that now when a single party (the BJP) has got absolute majority, the issue of the validity of a LoP has yet again resurfaced after 25 years.

Yet this time besides the set precedents, the government is armoured with yet another law — the Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups in Parliament (facilities) Act, 1998, (enacted by the then  BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government in 1998), which makes the following provisions:

a)       If any party fails to get 10 per cent seats in opposition, the House will not have a recognised leader of the opposition;

b)       The post of Leader of the Opposition can only be awarded to the leader of a single political party and not to the leader of an alliance, even if the alliance was formed prior to the election.

The Congress Party has only 44 members in the 16th Lok Sabha and thus Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, after seeking the opinion of the attorney-general, rejected its LoP demand citing rulings and precedents from 1980 and 1984.

Can we do away with LoP?

The ruling, and even the history associated with the post, thus suggests that the LoP cannot be an absolute necessity. But this leads to a larger question: Can we really afford to do away with the LoP?

Obviously, the LOP is a considerably powerful position. By virtue of the position, the LoP enjoys the rank of a cabinet minister and also serves on crucial selection panels for the Lokpal, Chief Information Commissioners, Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Central Bureau of Investigation Director, National Human Rights Commission Chairman and so on.

Hence it is on more than one count that the Speaker’s rejection of LoP in the 16th Lok Sabha is being evaluated and protested. Particularly so because on one hand, yet again after 25 long years, it rendered the opposition without a head that could well undermine democratic checks and balances; on the other hand, it did have an immediate impact on:

a)      The appointment of a new chief of Central Information Commission. (The appointment of the CIC head has to be done by President Pranab Mukherjee on the recommendation of a three-member selection committee headed by Prime Minister and comprising LoP and a Union cabinet minister nominated by the PM).The government was forced to defer the appointment rendering the CIC headless for the first time since its inception in 2005.

b)      The appointment of Lokpal. Although the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was passed by Parliament and came into force on January 16, 2014, no appointment has been made so far to the posts.

The matter has also been raised before the apex court, which without getting into the matter of legislative dispute on how the LoP should be appointed, did ask the Centre to explain how it will ensure an Opposition role in selecting the Lokpal in the absence of a LoP.

“Think of giving importance to the voice of the Leader of Opposition (LoP). If you are not changing the view, we will interpret (the law) and give a ruling,” a bench headed by RM Lodha, Chief Justice of India, told the government while hearing a PIL on delay in Lokpal’s appointment on August 23 this year.

It may be mentioned that as per the provisions of the Lok Pal Act “no appointment of a chairperson or a member shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the selection committee” that is to be chaired by the prime minister and comprised of the Lok Sabha Speaker; leader of Opposition in the House; Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice; and an eminent jurist, as members. Yet, The Lokpal Act specifically speaks of the LoP and does not make room for the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha (unlike the CVC Act) to be in the selection team and this does make the case tricky for the government.

The apex court hence observed: “Parliament never visualised such a situation. This aspect has to be made clear that whether the leader of the single largest party is considered in such a situation or not.”

The matter is still pending in the court which has given the government two weeks to revert. But an important observation that it made needs a serious consideration — “… Leader of Opposition — does it not convey the voice of the House, representing a view different from the government?”

It ought to be so…amen!