Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: October 23, 2022 at 19:19 IST
The Allahabad High Court ruled that there is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members’ Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 that requires the Speaker/Chairman of the house to acknowledge the leader of the party with the most numerical support as the opposition leader.
The court went on to say that if the Speaker acknowledges any person as the leader of the opposition party with the most numerical strength as the leader of the opposition, he is doing so on the basis of precedent.
The bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by a Samajwadi Party leader (Lal Bihari Yadav) challenging the UP government’s notification derecognizing him as the leader of the opposition in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council.
Petitioner/Samajwadi Party leader Lal Bihari Yadav was named the leader of the opposition in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council (upper) on May 27, 2022, via a notification dated May 27, 2022.
Now, in July 2022, when the Samajwadi Party’s membership in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council was reduced from 11 to 9, the UP government issued a notification derecognizing him as the opposition leader.
According to the notification, the decision was made because the Party’s strength in the council fell short of 10 – the bare minimum for the main opposition party to be appointed.
The petitioner challenged the ruling in the High Court.
Observations of the Court
According to the Court, there is no mandate in the Indian Constitution for the selection of a leader of the opposition in the legislative houses (be it parliament, state legislative assembly, or legislative council).
Concerning the UP State Legislature Act, the Court emphasised that no section of the Act imposes any obligation on the Speaker or Chairman to acknowledge any Leader of the Opposition.
The bench further stated that just because someone is the leader of the legislative council’s numerically largest opposition party does not give him an intrinsic right to be recognised as a leader of the opposition, and the onus is on the Petitioner to make a case for himself.
“There is no provision in the Act that requires or requires the Speaker to acknowledge the leader of the party with the most numerical strength as the leader of opposition. The Speaker’s ability to recognise any such leader is not to be exercised under this Act.”
“If the Speaker recognises any individual as the head of an opposition party with the highest numerical strength as the leader of opposition, he is doing so on the basis of practise and must thus fulfil the other standards of such practise and convention.”
As a result, the Court determined that there was no illegality in the decision to recognise the petitioner as the LoP because the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim any continuing as the Council’s leader of opposition.
“The Chairman of the Vidhan Parishad was not bound to be guided only with the criteria of recognizing the leader of an opposition party, which has the greatest numerical strength. The rules [Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council’s Procedure and Conduct of Business rules, 1956] provide for the discretion of Respondent no.1 to recognize and/or de-recognize a Leader of Opposition.”
“The reliance of Respondent No.1 on rule 234 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules, 1956 is a fair & judicious exercise of discretion in derecognizing the petitioner as leader of the opposition and is also in conformity with the precedent and practise of the legislative council,” the Court remarked as it dismissed the writ plea.