To insist 10% seat quota is essential for LoP blatant disregard to Parliamentary practice

By Venkatesh Nayak*
A reply has been reportedly sent by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to the President of the Indian National Congress (INC) refusing to accept the latter’s claim to the chair of the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) in that House for the leader of its parliamentary party. In the age of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) the text of this communication, which amounts to making an important decision, is simply not available on any official website. Nor has the INC displayed the contents of this letter on its own website despite being declared a public authority under the RTI Act, apropos of the June 2013 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC). This decision has not been set aside by any court till date.

Reasons for the Speaker’s Decision

Although Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act requires the Lok Sabha Secretariat to voluntarily place in the public domain all relevant facts about important decisions taken by the Speaker, our access to reasons behind her decision is facilitated by media reports only. The Speaker is reported to have given three reasons for her decision to deny the LOP’s chair to the INC:
(a) Past precedents when the LOP’s chair was not given to parties which had less than 10% of the membership of the House (we do not know for sure which past instances were cited);
(b) The opinion of the Learned Attorney General of India sought by the Speaker on this issue – the contents of which are also not available in the public domain except through media reports – again supposedly relying on the 10% rule; and
(c) Directions of past Speakers on the issue of the LOP left the current Speaker with no discretion on this matter.
Some people have overenthusiastically appreciated this development in complete ignorance of the express will and intention of Parliament when it gave legal recognition to the LOPs’ office through a special statute in 1977. It is one thing to be politically partisan – that freedom is available for any person – but it is reprehensible and undesirable to twist the law by interpreting it in a manner that contradicts or negates the will of Parliament which represents the will of the people of India.

The Speaker’s Decision Appears to be Contrary to the Express Will and Intention of Parliament on this Issue

If the aforementioned reasons are truly contained in the Speaker’s reply to the INC, then with all due respect to her wisdom, it must be said that her decision may amount to a complete disregard for the express will of Parliament when it passed the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament, 1977 (LOP Act) providing a clear definition of the term “Leader of Opposition”.
Section 2 of the LOP Act defines the phrase “Leader of the Opposition” as follows:”

In this Act, ‘Leader of the Opposition’, in relation to either House of Parliament means that member of the Council of States” (i.e., the Rajya Sabha) “or the House of the People” (i.e., Lok Sabha) “as the case may be, who is, for the time being, the Leader in that House of the party in Opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be.”
Section 2 is crystal clear: LOP must satisfy three tests – 1) LOP claimant must be a leader of a political party represented in the House; 2) that party must have the second greatest numerical strength in that House; 3) that party must be in Opposition to the Government. If these three tests are satisfied, then the Speaker must recognise that Leader as the LOP.
The issues raised by the Speaker amount to questioning the second test – greatest numerical strength – should this strength be linked to a minimum quota of seats in the Lok Sabha? A corollary to that query is whether this issue must be decided by referring to past precedents also.
In 1977 Parliament rejected the idea of fixing a quota for claiming the LOP’s chair decisively. The LOP Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on August 6, 1977. It was taken up or discussion two days later on August 8. HV Kamath, an MP of the Janata Party, and belonging to one of its constituents – the Jan Sangh, a previous avatar of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – moved amendment #15 to fix 1/6th as the quota of seats in the House required for any MPs to claim the LOP’s chair. In support of his amendment proposal, Kamath quoted the very same speech of GV Mavalankar, first Speaker of the Lok Sabha where a reference was made to the 10% seat requirement.
This amendment was decisively rejected by the Janata Party MPs who were in the majority in the then Lok Sabha. So the 10% requirement was weighed and measured and discarded by the Lok Sabha. To insist that 10% seat quota is essential to claim the LOP’s chair amounts to blatant disregard for the express intention of Parliament which represents the will of the people of India.
During the same discussion in the Lok Sabha, Samar Mukherjee, MP from the CPI(M) tabled amendment #23 seeking to introduce a requirement that the Speaker or Chairman recognise the LOP on the basis of past practices and conventions. He also cited past precedents where parliamentary parties were recognised as such only if they had 10% or more seats in either House of Parliament.
This amendment was also rejected by the Lok Sabha where the Janata Party was in a majority. So Section 2 of the LOP Bill was adopted by the Lok Sabha without any change. To insist that past precedents are binding on the Speaker while deciding the claim of a party to the LOP’s chair also amounts to complete willful disregard to the express intention of Parliament which represents the will of the people of India.
The Rajya Sabha passed the LOP Bill without any amendments on August 9.
So, given Parliament’s rejection of both the 10% requirement and the reliance on past precedents for recognising the LOP, in my opinion the Speaker has no option but to simply do a head count of the members of the party that has the largest number of MPs in the Lok Sabha after the BJP and recognise the leader of that party as the LOP. To this extent, the Speaker is true: There is no exercise of discretion involved when the numbers are crystal clear.

Can the Speaker’s Decision be challenged in Court?

A few days ago the media reported on some remarks attributed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) suit seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker to recognise the Leader of the INC in the Lok Sabha as the LOP. The CJI is said to have remarked that the decision of the Speaker is not open to judicial review. If this is indeed true, with the greatest respect to the wisdom of the CJI and the Apex Court, I beg to differ on this issue for the following reasons:
(1) The explanation to Section 2 of the the LOP Act states that the decision of the Speaker to accord recognition to a member as LOP will be conclusive and final. This implies that the Court will have no power to review such a decision. However, that phrase cannot be stretched to cover a context where the Speaker’s decision is to deny a claim and, that too in the face of statutory provisions that are crystal clear in their meaning with due reference to the will and intention to Parliament as expressed during the debates on the LOP Bill. Any erroneous application of statutory provisions to decide on the rights of any party is open for judicial review. Error of application of law is a ground for invoking the court’s power of judicial review, although in a limited manner- the motives and rationale behind arriving at such a decision cannot be questioned in such a motion.
(2) While Article 105(2) of the Constitution grants immunity from prosecution for all MPs for anything done or said on the floor of the House, to the best of my knowledge that immunity may not extend to decisions taken in the Speaker’s chamber when the Lok Sabha is not in session.
In order to uphold justice and the rule of law, the Courts will have to step in to give a finding as to whether any law has been contravened.
So in my humble opinion any Opposition party, including the INC that wishes to challenge the Speaker’s decision, will have valid grounds to point out in its petition as to why that decision cannot be sustained in law. The primary ground will be complete disregard for the express will of Parliament in imbuing the term “Leader of the Opposition” with crystal clear meaning. A crystal clear statutory provision cannot be overridden by rules, precedents or directives.
—
Programme Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi

Comments

Eight years of empowering tribal communities through water initiatives in Chhattisgarh

By Gazala Paul* In the heart of Chhattisgarh, amidst the echoes of tribal life, a transformative journey has unfolded over the past eight years. The Samerth organization has diligently worked to elevate the lives of indigenous communities in the Kawardha district through the project, "Enabling Baiga Community to access safe drinking water."

Towards 2024: Time for ‘We the People of India’ to wake up before it is too late

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ* It is Constitution Day once again! We, the people of India, gratefully remember 26 November 1949 when the Constitution of India was passed and adopted by the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly comprised women and men of distinction, who were able to represent the heart and soul of the people of India without fear or favour. They gave of their best, so that we may a visionary Constitution, which would be the mainstay for and of democracy in India!

Regretful: Kapil Dev retired not leaving Indian cricket with integrity he upheld

By Harsh Thakor Kapil Dev scaled heights as an entertainer and a player upholding the spirit of the game almost unparalleled in his era. In his time he was cricket’s ultimate mascot of sportsmanship On his day Kapil could dazzle in all departments to turn the tempo of game in the manner of a Tsunami breaking in. He radiated r energy, at a level rarely scaled in his era on a cricket field. Few ever blended aggression with artistry so comprehenisively. Although fast medium, he could be as daunting with the ball as the very best, with his crafty outswinger, offcutter, slower ball and ball that kicked from a good length. Inspite of bowling on docile tracks on the subcontinent, Kapil had 434 scalps, with virtually no assistance. I can never forget how he obtained pace and movement on flat pancakes, trapping the great Vivian Richards in Front or getting Geoff Boycott or Zaheer Abbas caught behind. No paceman carried the workload of his team’s bowling attack on his shoulders in his eras muc

Critical factors that determine, contribute to the success and effectiveness of NGOs

By Rohit Rakshit Over the last few years, I have been fortunate to work with numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across various states in the country. This experience has allowed me to gain insights into their diverse areas of work while also enabling me to analyze the key attributes that contribute to the success of a good NGO. According to my observations, the following are the critical factors that determine the effectiveness of an NGO.

How the slogan Jai Bhim gained momentum as movement of popularity and revolution

By Dr Kapilendra Das* India is an incomprehensible plural country loaded with diversities of religions, castes, cultures, languages, dialects, tribes, societies, costumes, etc. The Indians have good manners/etiquette (decent social conduct, gesture, courtesy, politeness) that build healthy relationships and take them ahead to life. In many parts of India, in many situations, and on formal occasions, it is common for people of India to express and exchange respect, greetings, and salutation for which we people usually use words and phrases like- Namaskar, Namaste, Pranam, Ram Ram, Jai Ram ji, Jai Sriram, Good morning, shubha sakal, Radhe Radhe, Jai Bajarangabali, Jai Gopal, Jai Jai, Supravat, Good night, Shuvaratri, Jai Bhole, Salaam walekam, Walekam salaam, Radhaswami, Namo Buddhaya, Jai Bhim, Hello, and so on.

Martin Crowe played instrumental role in making New Zealand a force in world cricket

By Harsh Thakor* Late Martin Crowe was the perfect manifestation of how mere figures could not convey or do justice to the true merit of a batsman. Crowe was arguably the most complete or majestic batsmen of his era or the ultimate embodiment of batting perfection, or the classical batsmen. He perished 7 years ago, due to a rare and aggressive form of cancer, follicular lymphoma, which originated in 2012. In September, we celebrated his 60th birthday but sadly he left for his heavenly abode.

Raising temperature of frozen foods by 3 degrees from -18°C to -15°C can slash carbon emissions: Study

By Payel Sannigrahi Frozen food temperatures could be changed by just three degrees to save the carbon dioxide emissions of 3.8 million cars per year, research suggests.

Odisha leadership crisis deepens: CM engages retired babus to oversee depts' work

By Sudhansu R Das Over decades, Odisha has lost much of its crop diversity, fertile agriculture land, water bodies, employment potential, handicraft and handloom skills etc. The state has failed to strike a balance between the urban and rural sector growth; this leads to the migration of villagers to the urban areas leading to collapse of the urban infrastructures and an acute labor shortage in rural areas. A large number of educated, skilled and unskilled Odia people have migrated to other states for higher education, quality jobs and for earning livelihood which plummet the efficiency level of government departments. Utmost transparency in the recruitment and promotion in the state government departments will improve governance mechanisms in the state. "No near and dear one approach" in governance mechanisms can only achieve inclusive growth for the state on payment basis. This is a moral hazard. When so many educated young people seek employment outside the

1982-83 Bombay textile strike played major role in shaping working class movement

By Harsh Thakor On January 18th, 1982 the working class movement commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Textile Workers Strike that lasted for 18 months, till July 1983. It was landmark event that played a major role in shaping the working class movement. With more than 2.5 lakh workers from 65 textile mills joining in this strike for almost two years, this strike became one of the most significant strikes in terms of scale and duration All democrats should applaud the mill workers’ united battle, and their unflinching resilience an death defying courage continues to serve as a model for contemporary working-class movements. Many middle class persons harboured opinions that the Textile workers were pampered or were a labour aristocracy, ignorant of how they were denied wages to provide for basic necessities. The Great Bombay Textile Strike is notably one of the most defining movements in the working class struggles in Post-independent India. Bombay’s textile industry flourished in

Ceasefire a tactical victory for Palestinian resistance, protests intensify across globe

By Harsh Thakor* The Zionist leadership and Netanyahu’s government were compelled to concede the defeat of their first attempt after almost 50 days of daily fighting in the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu was forced to concede that he was unsuccessful in suppressing the Palestinian Resistance; and that the release of the prisoners was only plausible because they accepted Hamas’ terms.

Search This Blog