Supreme Court has power to interpret on Leader of Opposition
The only way is to bring an ordinance, which would be a pity
Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan has formally decided to disallow the official position of Leader of the Opposition (LOP) to the Congress, the largest party in the House. But this hasn’t settled the controversy on the subject.
The Speaker says that past practice, as evident from Speakers’ Directions, as well as expert opinion, including that of the attorney-general, militate against giving the post to the Congress since the former ruling party’s strength in the Lok Sabha had been reduced to being less than one-tenth of the House, which seemed to be the requirement in the past (although not under any law).
This stand does not impress the Supreme Court. A bench led by Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha said on Friday that it would interpret the law and the rules pertaining to the LOP if the government did not come back to the apex court by September 9 to explain how the Lok Pal could be appointed if there was no LOP. Under the Lokpal Act, the LOP is an integral member of the selection panel for Lokpal along with the Prime Minister.
The Lokpal Act does not make room for the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha (unlike the CVC Act) to be in the selection team. It specifically speaks of the LOP without any condition in the form of the “one-tenth” rule.
The Chief Justice dwelt on the importance of the institution of the LOP in a democracy. Since the Lokpal is meant to investigate corruption in high places, which means in government, it would be strange if there was no institutionalised LOP to appoint the Lokpal in a transparent way.
The government can’t possibly amend the Lokpal Act by September 9 to permit the leader of the largest Opposition party to be a part of the selection process as the Parliament is not in session. The only other way is to bring an ordinance.
That would be a pity. It would show that the government is not ready to cede institutional space to the Opposition. Our democracy has evolved. Speakers’ Directions of the ’50s and the ’60s — when the Opposition space in the country was too narrow to matter — cannot answer today’s questions. Now laws regarding key appointments prescribe the presence of a formal LOP. In any case, the so-called “one-tenth” rule seems tenuous if the Chief Justice’s first reactions are any indication.
The BJP appears to hold that in the sphere of running the House, the Speaker’s decision is final and cannot be overruled by the top court. However, the apex court has the power to interpret the law. Moreover, designating the LOP is one thing, running the House another.