dna edit: Burden of the past

With the controversy over the Lok Sabha Speaker denying the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) post to the Congress remaining unresolved for several weeks now, the government must step in and clear the confusion that prevails. Though the Constitution of India does not provide for an LoP, the importance of designating an opposition leader was felt soon after the first general election when Opposition parties petitioned the first Lok Sabha speaker GV Mavalankar. He created the existing convention of the LoP post going to the largest opposition party with 10 per cent representation. Even after the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, was enacted giving statutory backing to the LoP post, the positions lay vacant in the 7th and 8th Lok Sabhas of 1980 and 1984, with the Congress echoing Mavalankar’s ruling.  Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi’s legal opinion has now reaffirmed this tradition and also cited the General Direction 121 in the “Directions to the Speaker” which instructs the Speaker to recognise a parliamentary “party” or “group” only if it has 10 per cent of the House strength. 

At stake for the Congress is the danger of losing its hold on the public imagination. The party that led India to its Independence has only itself to blame for all its woes, including the latest one on the LoP. Though the entire Opposition contingent is nearly 200-strong, the Congress has cut a sorry figure garnering little support for a post that it imperiously denied others in its heyday. However, constitutional backing for the LoP post cannot be held captive to the Congress’ past actions or its miserable present. After all, the Westminster system that we emulated casts the primary opposition as a shadow cabinet to check the ruling party. In recent years, India has set up important watchdogs like the Central Vigilance Commission, Central Information Commission, National Human Rights Commission and the Lokpal, with the LoP as a member in their respective selection committees. The CVC and RTI Acts provide for the leader of the largest opposition party to sit on the respective selection committees in the LoP’s absence, but the NHRC and the Lokpal Acts expressly sanction the government to proceed with appointment despite a vacancy in the selection committee.

Though this rider would stave off legal challenges to NHRC and Lokpal appointments, the possibility of a judicial review of the respective Acts, alleging unconstitutionality, cannot be ruled out. The importance of a critical voice in such appointments is highlighted by former LoP Sushma Swaraj’s dissent note against ex-CVC PJ Thomas’ appointment, which was quashed by the Supreme Court later. In the NHRC member Cyriac Joseph’s appointment, both Swaraj and then Rajya Sabha LoP Arun Jaitley filed dissent notes citing an adverse intelligence report. Such dissent enriches democracy and invigorates institutional functioning. The LoP’s inclusion in such appointments was a progressive change in our democratic evolution. It was the Supreme Court, through the 1997 Vinit Narain case, which instituted a bipartisan mechanism involving the LoP for the first time in the appointment of the CVC. Interestingly, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Election Commissioners, and chiefs of CBI, IB, RAW and other bodies created in earlier decades continue to be appointed unilaterally by the government, despite calls for bipartisanship. The drift of our democratic processes is clearly towards a system that recognises the importance of a Leader of Opposition, irrespective of how decimated or negligible the Opposition is.