On Sunday, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venkaiah Naidu indicated that there was a possibility that the 16th Lok Sabha may not have an officially designated Leader of Opposition.
“There was no Leader of Opposition during Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi's time,” Naidu said. “When Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister, the Telegu Desam was the largest opposition with 31 MPs. But for the reasons best known to the Congress Party, they did not give recognition of Leader of Opposition status to the TDP at that time...”
Naidu said that the decision on appointing a Leader of Opposition would be left to the speaker, Sumitra Mahajan.
Usually, this post, which has the rank of a cabinet minister, goes to the second-largest party in the Lok Sabha. But the rules also say that if the second-largest party fails to get 10 per cent seats in the Lok Sabha, which works out to 55 seats, the House will not have a recognised Leader of the Opposition. Since the Congress has only 44 seats, this would make it ineligible to select a candidate for the position.
As many political experts have pointed out, since the 10% rule came about as part of a decision by the very first Speaker, GV Malvankar, the decision on appointment of the Leader of Opposition remains a prerogative of the Speaker.
Failing to appoint a Leader of Opposition could have a deleterious effect on Indian democracy. This official sits on panels to choose members of the Central Vigilance Commission, members of the Lokpal and Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The absence of a countervailing opinion on these committees would allow the government completely free rein.
Only last year, the CBI was sought to be given an autonomous status by providing for the appointment of its Director by a collegium consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him.
In addition, the chief vigilance commissioners and the vigilance commissioners, who are charged with monitoring all vigilance activities under the Central government, are appointed by a three-member panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Similarly, the Leader of Opposition has also been given a critical role under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which provides for the establishment of an ombudsman to fight corruption in public offices and ensure accountability on the part of public officials, including the Prime Minister. The Act lays down that the chairperson and the members of the Lokpal will be appointed by a selection panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him.
All these bodies and office bearers can achieve their stated objectives only if they continue to function autonomously and free from the control of the executive. The presence of the Leader of Opposition on the selection panels for all the watchdogs has been considered necessary to ensure the autonomy of these bodies.
But that very premise seems to have undermined now that the government seems adamant to invoke a clause formulated at a time when the position was primarily ceremonial.
People familiar with Narendra Modi’s style of functioning allege that the BJP’s position on the matter emanates from the new prime minister’s aversion to official watchdogs. In Gujarat, the Lokayukta – the anti-corruption ombudsman – was a controversial office during Modi’s years in office. In fact, the state remained without a Lokayukta for almost a decade after the term of SM Soni expired in December 2003. In 2013, Justice (Retd) RA Mehta refused to take up the post. In a letter to Governor Kamala Beniwal and Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Mehta stated the reason: “A Lokayukta unwanted by the government cannot get all the necessary and timely support and cooperation from the reluctant government.”
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
“There was no Leader of Opposition during Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi's time,” Naidu said. “When Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister, the Telegu Desam was the largest opposition with 31 MPs. But for the reasons best known to the Congress Party, they did not give recognition of Leader of Opposition status to the TDP at that time...”
Naidu said that the decision on appointing a Leader of Opposition would be left to the speaker, Sumitra Mahajan.
Usually, this post, which has the rank of a cabinet minister, goes to the second-largest party in the Lok Sabha. But the rules also say that if the second-largest party fails to get 10 per cent seats in the Lok Sabha, which works out to 55 seats, the House will not have a recognised Leader of the Opposition. Since the Congress has only 44 seats, this would make it ineligible to select a candidate for the position.
As many political experts have pointed out, since the 10% rule came about as part of a decision by the very first Speaker, GV Malvankar, the decision on appointment of the Leader of Opposition remains a prerogative of the Speaker.
Failing to appoint a Leader of Opposition could have a deleterious effect on Indian democracy. This official sits on panels to choose members of the Central Vigilance Commission, members of the Lokpal and Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The absence of a countervailing opinion on these committees would allow the government completely free rein.
Only last year, the CBI was sought to be given an autonomous status by providing for the appointment of its Director by a collegium consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him.
In addition, the chief vigilance commissioners and the vigilance commissioners, who are charged with monitoring all vigilance activities under the Central government, are appointed by a three-member panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Similarly, the Leader of Opposition has also been given a critical role under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which provides for the establishment of an ombudsman to fight corruption in public offices and ensure accountability on the part of public officials, including the Prime Minister. The Act lays down that the chairperson and the members of the Lokpal will be appointed by a selection panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him.
All these bodies and office bearers can achieve their stated objectives only if they continue to function autonomously and free from the control of the executive. The presence of the Leader of Opposition on the selection panels for all the watchdogs has been considered necessary to ensure the autonomy of these bodies.
But that very premise seems to have undermined now that the government seems adamant to invoke a clause formulated at a time when the position was primarily ceremonial.
People familiar with Narendra Modi’s style of functioning allege that the BJP’s position on the matter emanates from the new prime minister’s aversion to official watchdogs. In Gujarat, the Lokayukta – the anti-corruption ombudsman – was a controversial office during Modi’s years in office. In fact, the state remained without a Lokayukta for almost a decade after the term of SM Soni expired in December 2003. In 2013, Justice (Retd) RA Mehta refused to take up the post. In a letter to Governor Kamala Beniwal and Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Mehta stated the reason: “A Lokayukta unwanted by the government cannot get all the necessary and timely support and cooperation from the reluctant government.”