By: Tarun Ranjan*

INTRODUCTION

India, that is Bharat, has concluded the largest election the world has ever witnessed in May 2024, with the National Democratic Alliance set to retain Raisina for yet another term. This Lok Sabha will be unlike any seen in the last ten years as, for the first time, the House of the People is poised to have a recognized Leader of the Opposition (LoP). This is a position that the leading Opposition party, Congress, was denied for two consecutive Lok Sabha terms based on an imprecise interpretation of statutes and customs—a move Congress itself had once enforced in 1980 and 1984.

In August 2014, Sumitra Mahajan, the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha, denied Congress the post, citing The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998. In a letter to Congress Parliamentary Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, a position Gandhi continues to hold, Mahajan explained that Congress did not meet the definition of a recognized party as per Section 2 of the 1998 Act, and thus she could not, in good conscience, accord Congress the cabinet-equal rank position of the Leader of Opposition.

THE ACTS THAT SHAPE THE OPPOSITIONS’S VOICE 

Section 2 of The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 defines a recognized party in relation to the House of the People as any party with a strength of not less than fifty-five members in the House. There is an inherent flaw in this provision, which became the basis for Mahajan’s decision. Notably, the 1998 Act does not define the Leader of Opposition.

Relying on advice from the then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, Mahajan argued that a minimum of 55 members was necessary for a party to be recognized in the House. A party with fewer MPs was classified as a “group.” Those supporting Mahajan contended that the position of Leader of Opposition could only be given to a party with at least 55 MPs. They assumed that the Speaker must first recognize a party as a “party” under the 1998 Act before acknowledging the Leader of Opposition under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. This interpretation is fundamentally flawed.

The 1977 Act uses the term “party” but does not define it. Each Parliamentary Act has its declared objective stated in its title, making the Act independent of the subject matter it addresses. Therefore, there is no need to refer to any other Act to understand the terminology unless specifically mentioned. In simpler terms, the word “party” in the Leader of Opposition Act should be interpreted in its general sense, not based on the definition provided in the 1998 Act. Similarly, the word “recognized” in the context of the Leader of Opposition pertains to the leader, not the party.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textiles Processors, held that a statute is an edict of the legislature, and the language used is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The primary aim should be to understand what has been stated as well as what has not been stated. Consequently, a construction that requires adding or substituting words or results in rendering words meaningless must be avoided.

The question is not what was intended but what has been said. As Judge Learned Hand stated:

“Statutes should be construed not as theorems of Euclid, but words must be construed with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them.”

The golden rule for construing all written instruments is to adhere to the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words unless doing so leads to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid absurdity, but no further.

Statutory institutions should not be paralyzed due to misinterpretation of laws. The law should be interpreted in a way that fulfils its goal and objective. The purpose of the Leader of Opposition Act is to ensure the existence of the Leader of Opposition throughout the entire tenure of the Lok Sabha. It is not mandatory for an opposition party to secure a specific number of seats in the House. Any interpretation that renders the law ineffective should not be allowed.

If lawmakers had intended to impose a 10 percent requirement, they could have added it to the Act. Even after the 1998 Act came into force, the definition of the Leader of Opposition Act was not amended. The 1998 Act was intended to provide certain facilities to the leaders of various parties in Parliament, necessitating a classification of parties based on their size. Larger parties require more facilities, while smaller parties require fewer. Therefore, the classification into “party” and “group” in the 1998 Act does not apply to recognizing the Leader of Opposition. The recognition of the Leader of Opposition should be based solely on the 1977 Act.

THE POST OF LEADER OF OPPOSITION:  A STATUTORY OBLIGATION

The Leader of Opposition is a statutory post with statutory responsibilities. If it is insisted that a party can only have a Leader of Opposition if it has 55 members, the functioning of many statutory committees, where the Leader of Opposition is a member, would come to a halt. Appointing the Leader of Opposition is a statutory duty of the Speaker; discretion in this matter is not an option. The Speaker is obligated to appoint the leader of the largest opposition party in the House as Leader of the Opposition.

The misinterpretation of the 10 percent rule has a history. In 1984, the largest party in the opposition was the Telugu Desam Party, led by NT Rama Rao. With fewer than 55 members, the party’s leader in the Lok Sabha, Madhav Reddy, was not made the Leader of Opposition, contrary to the provisions of the 1977 Act. Similarly, in 1980, Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jhakar denied the Janata Dal (Secular) the position, despite the party winning 43 seats.

In 2019, Om Birla, Speaker of the 17th Lok Sabha, followed this precedent and denied Congress the Leader of Opposition position after the party won only 52 seats. Speakers aligned with the treasury have repeatedly deviated from their statutory obligations, leading to decisions that are not legally sound. The determination of the Leader of Opposition should not be based on whether a party is entitled to it under arbitrary thresholds, but should be resolved according to the Act governing the subject.

THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION

Today, the position of Leader of the Opposition in India is recognized only by the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. This recognition is not mandated by the Constitution or any other statutory requirement. Instead, guidelines for the role are provided by the Speaker under Rule 389 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the House of the People, primarily concerning seat allocation, debate times, and office spaces within Parliament.

Despite the 1977 Act, the directives from the Speaker do not carry more weight than the statutory provisions concerning the Leader of Opposition. The lack of constitutional backing for this position has led to its absence in the Lok Sabha for two successive terms following the general elections of 2014 and 2019. This absence reflects the ambiguity and limitations in the current legislative framework governing the role.

Codifying the position of Leader of Opposition in the Constitution would significantly strengthen parliamentary democracy. It would ensure that when the Leader of Opposition criticizes the government, it is seen not as disaffection towards the state, but as the discharge of a constitutional duty. Institutionalizing dissent in the constitutional framework would normalize criticism of the government and reinforce the checks and balances essential to democratic governance.

CONCLUSION

The Leader of Opposition is a crucial post in a parliamentary democracy. This position participates in appointing key constitutional offices, including the Election Commissioners, CBI Director, and CIC Commissioners. The importance of the Leader of Opposition cannot be overstated; any hiatus in this position would undermine the democratic process, which relies on a system of checks and balances.

With the principal opposition party, Congress, securing 99 seats in the Lok Sabha, the party has ensured the existence of a Leader of Opposition in the 18th Lok Sabha. However, there remains a need to analyze both the 1977 and 1998 Acts to ensure that the legislative framework supports the effective functioning of this vital democratic institution.

The Supreme Court’s stance on statutory interpretation emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the necessity of adhering to the plain meaning of words unless it results in absurdity. The Leader of Opposition Act’s purpose is to ensure the opposition’s role, not to impose arbitrary numerical thresholds. Therefore, the 1998 Act, designed for facility allocation, should not dictate the recognition of the Leader of Opposition.

*Tarun Ranjan is a 3rd year law student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National law University, Lucknow and a member at Kautilya Society, RMLNLU.