About the Author
This Article is written by Aneeta Nirmal Mamen, Second Year Unitary LLB student at Government Law College, Thrissur
With the sweeping changes made within a span of ten years, the current government has been able to bring quite remarkable changes in law. Most of these changes may have been warranted yet, the manner in which they were achieved seems to be authoritative than democratic. Through a democratically elected government, the laws brought forth and amendments made in the existing laws would ideally be the mandate of ‘we the people’, however, the absence of a healthy debate in the parliament before the words gain assent cuts through the fabric of democracy.
WHY DO WE NEED AN OPPOSITION?
Is opposition a necessity in our country? In the UK, the British Parliament has only two parties. One of them comes into power and forms the Government. The subsequent party then forms a strong Opposition. However, the opposition also forms a pseudo cabinet (‘the shadow cabinet’) which in the case of a fall of the government, would come into existence and take control over the administration of the country. In India, a multi-party system is prevalent with few spread across the country and most forming regional factions. The party with the majority forms the government and the remaining parties form an opposition. In case a clear majority of seats is not won an alliance of parties is observed like the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) or NDA (National Democratic Alliance) in India. The other parties then form an Opposition with a leader from the party with the most number of seats. This Opposition does not resemble the British Opposition but does stand as a check and raise queries in the Sabha regarding the various Bills introduced in the House.
The dialogues between the Ruling party and the Opposition might create momentary friction but they also pave the way for clarity, open up to better ideas, and create better legislation. Thus, Opposition plays a major role in developing laws in the country which govern every person in the country.
For example – In the light of the amendment to Article 342 A with regard to the National Commission for Backward Classes being made into a Constitutional Body, the powers of the State to identify the backward classes in the state eligible for reservation had not been taken away by the makers of the government. However, the wordings of the provision did create a confusion which was well pointed out by the Opposition then and had requested to mention the same in the amendment. The lack of heed, led to the same being questioned in the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs The Chief Minsiter, Maharashtra and Ors. (Civil Appeal NO. 3123 of 2020) (AIRONLINE 2021 SC 240) stated that the States’ powers had been taken away. And finally the 105th amendment of the Constitution came into force to bring in the required change to put an end to the story. The time lost in between could have been better utilized by the ruling party.
OPPOSITION IN THE CONSTITUTION
The debate of whether there should be a clear statutory position for Leader of Opposition and a sum paid to the person holding that post did create a heated argument during the Constituent Assembly days. Mr. Z H Lari, had proposed an amendment to the current Article 106 (Draft Constitution Article 86) to include a set salary be constitutionalized which also includes a salary to the Leader of the Opposition thereby creating a statutory recognition to Opposition. The need for such recognition as per the Mr. Lari was to ensure that the Opposition would then make efforts to create and support the government to make better legislations just like the Leader of Opposition in England who is known as His Majesty’s Opposition. During the Constituent Assembly debates as per certain members of the Parliament, ruling Party and State were considered interchangeable terms. And any utterance against the Party would have rendered as sedition like comments. Thus a statutory Opposition would make “public at large and everybody (will) feel that the Constitution itself recognizes the existence of the Leader of the Opposition and that when he criticizes or attacks the Government and carries on agitation in the countryside and rouses public opinion against the party’s misdeeds, really he doing a duty assigned to him by the Constitution.”
Mr. Lari had also pointed out that without an Opposition in the Parliament, the chambers would become docile, meek and submissive. He also said, “Everyone knows that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is also a truism to say that every party that comes into power tries to make its hold permanent. The only check on degeneration of party government in to a despotism is the existence of another party which keeps a strict eye on the doings of the cabinet and the party and thereby prevents degenerations in to a party government into a dictatorship”. In December 2023, when 141 MPs from the Opposition were suspended for reasons of disrupting the Parliament and major Criminal Bills were placed for passing it in the Parliament, without any healthy discussion on the Bills, these words of Mr. Lari echoes from the past.
Whether the Constituent Assembly was right to hold that a statutory position of Opposition was unwarranted is not a concern but a ‘debate less’ and ‘unchecked’ approval of Bills in the Parliament cannot be made the norm as it dangerously affects the functioning of a Democratic State like India.
[It must be noted that Leader of Opposition, is a statutory position defined in the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 and has a primary role while choosing various important functionaries such as choosing the members in the NJAC. However, while passing Bills in the Parliament the presence of Opposition is not deliberated upon but rather the majority votes for passing such Bills is the criteria.]
CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATES SHOULD BE WELCOMED
A healthy Opposition has few major roles in the Parliament, such as:
- Acts as a watchdog to check the Government from being authoritarian and restrict it from misuse of its powers.
- To criticize the policies of the Government, but also not to hinder the functioning of the Government.
- To question the Government on the expenditure of the Government and critically analyse the functioning of the Government and ensure the public is made aware of it.
- To encourage healthy discussions during the Question Hour about the various amendments and Bills introduced, putting forth need for changes and approval of the correct legislations.
- To shed light on the grievances of the public to the Government which require attention and change.
A healthy Opposition allows the Government to take appropriate steps for the smooth functioning of the Government. Without an Opposition, the democracy may become a ruling party’s playground and eventually a one man’s rule. Quentin Hogg rightfully observed, “it is not a long step, from the absence of an organized opposition to a complete dictatorship”.
A good opposition works for the welfare of the country. By observing the government’s methods and correcting them amicably also creates a sense of assurance in the public that the country is being led in the right path. The function of the Opposition is not to merely criticize the government but to also induce the government to modify its policies.1
In a recent article published in the Hindu on the Data of the 17th Lok Sabha and Parliament functioning post 1990, shows that the scrutiny of Bills has been declining over the years. Even the discussion hours of such Bills introduced has been reduced considerably with 120 hours to mere 35 hours annually on an average. The 17th Lok Sabha allowed only one discussion for a Bill.2
When the Opposition is constitutionally recognised while selecting major posts of the the country’s administration and judiciary, it would be better to also ensure that Opposition’s presence should be ensured while Bills are passed to encourage criticism which helps the governments to modify laws favourable for the nation in order to protect our democracy. By doing so, we also can showcase the world of how our country functions democratically keeping the will of the people in mind.
CONCLUSION
In December 2023, when 141 MPs from the Opposition were suspended for reasons of disrupting the Parliament and major Criminal Bills were placed for passing it in the Parliament. It should have been the duty of the government to ensure that these Bills were critically analsyed by the Parliament before it was approved as these laws directly affect the common people of our country. These Bills which claim to have been decolonized, still do contain draconian ideas which could be better modified with a fruitful discussion. The efforts of Thomas Macaulay and his commission in creating codified criminal laws should be appreciated and observed. Laws should not be mere words but should ensure justice prevails when it is enforced in the land. If Thomas Macaulay should be ignored as he was a British agent, then we can at least look for encouragement from the Constituent Assembly debates where stalwarts like Dr. B R Ambedkar, Shri S K Mookherjee , Pandit Nehru or Shri. T T Krishnamachari did not shy away from constructive criticism of the Constitution. The result: A Constitution with our fundamental rights protected in whole, a living document relevant to this day. In conclusion, “No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition”. – Benjamin Disraeli.
Reference:
- Kumar, D. (2014). ROLE OF OPPOSITION IN A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 75(1), 165–170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24701093
- ANKITA DINKAR, THE MANY LOWS OF THE 17TH LOK SABHA, THE HINDU, KOCHI EDITION, VOL. 25, NO. 38, FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 9.
- CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES On 20 May, 1949 Part I
