As the debate rages on the issue of LoP (Leader of Opposition) in 16th Loksabha, thought to bring some historical facts and thoughts on various aspects.
Issue
In 16th Loksabha, BJP is the single largest party with 282 seats, followed by Congress with 44, AIADMK with 37, TMC with 34 and BJD with 20 seats. Since no party crossed more then 10% seats (i.e. 55), No LoP is designated yet and Speaker of Loksabha is deliberating on this. Congress has written a formal letter, requesting to be assigned LoP on grounds of past traditions.
History
Brief history on who were the LoPs in various Loksabha tenures since independence:
Legal
Rule: Mr. G. V. Mavalankar , the first Speaker of the Loksabha, has formulated the rule: A party must have at least ten per cent of the strength of the House in order to qualify to be designated as a Parliamentary Party and the leader of the largest such Parliamentary Party in the opposition ranks is designated Leader of the Opposition. This rule has been followed since then, with no exception.
Precedence: 6 of the earlier Loksabha tenures witnessed the situation of no parties (other then the ruling party) having more then 10% of the seats. Consequently, LoP remained vacant during those tenures. So no precedence of any relaxation in the rule:
- In 1st LS, CPI was the 2nd largest party with 16 seats as against 364 of congress
- In 2nd LS, CPI was the 2nd largest party with 27 seats as against 371 of congress
- In 3rd LS, CPI was the 2nd largest party with 29 seats as against 361 of congress
- In 5th LS, CPM was the 2nd largest party with 25 seats as against 352 of congress. CPI with 23 and BJS with 22 seats were other opposition parties
- In 8th LS, JNP(S) was the 2nd largest party with 41 seats as against 353 of congress. CPM with 37 and JNP with 31 seats were other opposition parties
- In 9th LS, TDP was the 2nd largest party with 30 seats as against 404 of congress. CPM with 22, ADMK with 12 and JNP with 10 seats were other opposition parties
Arguments
- Don't go by numbers and be generous: As Congress got 44 seats and fell short by only 10 (for 55), argument is made that the rule can be given a go-by. Another argument given by congress that they are 55+ considering pre-poll alliance with NCP (6), RJD (4), JMM(2).
- This author feels that both these arguments don't stand legally if scrutinized against the rule. As congress didn't show any inclination on earlier occasions to relax this rule, there is No reason for BJP to do this relaxation in this LS tenure
- If alliance has to be considered as a criteria for LoP, then it has to consider any alliance i.e. pre or post poll alliance. In that case, let there be a contest for LoP and all parties be given a fair chance for it.
- LoP plays role in key appointments: Some congress supporters say that LoP participates in key central appointments (i.e. Head of CBI, CVC, CEC, Lokpal and few others) and hence it has to be designated. Author opines that LoP role in these appointments have been largely ceremonial and it's views were mostly disregarded. Here are few examples:
- Sushma Swaraj, LoP in 15th LS, opposed appointment of K. V. Thomas as CVC but Primer Minister Manmohan Singh ignore and went ahead with the appointment. Later this went to SC, who struck down the appointment
- Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley voiced concerns on CBI Chief and Lokpal selections. They were all over-looked as LoP was the only opposition in the selection panel
- Hence, LoP in appointments, need to be revisited separately and a more reliable mechanism need to be formed so that LoP opinions are heard and addressed in an acceptable manner
- Ignore history: This is the most funny argument given by congress supporters to do a new beginning and accord the LoP to congress as it is the oldest party and BJP should start a new precedence. This author is of the view that such views may not be encouraged and speaker should go by rules. Congress has the history of ignoring traditions and not following rules, so no relaxation to congress. Let Congress learn the hard way..
Conclusion
- Legally, Congress does not qualify to get LoP.
- Conventionally, There is no tradition to accord LoP to a party with < 10% seats. Congress itself is responsible for this as they never broken this convention since inception.
- Morally, Congress should shed it's sense of entitlement (On the pretext of having ruled the country for 60 years and being the oldest party.) and refrain from asking for LoP as they don't met the criteria. They should learn from the drubbing in 2014 elections and focus on rebuilding the party.
- Ethically, As rule doesn't allow, one shouldn't ask to tweak the rule. If any tweak is considered, then it should be an open contest with all parties to get fair shot at LoP.
Finally some gems from SM on LoP:
References
