5 comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
A Blog About India's Laws and Legal System, its Courts, and its Constitution
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Very well argued.
Sir,
I fail to understand why the dictum of the Speaker or the Chairman is given so much importance when there is already a statutory provision (Section 2) that clearly does not recognize the 10% rule.
Also, no one can undermine the importance of a healthy and effective opposition in a parliamentary democracy like ours.
This point was discussed by the Constituent Assembly as well.
Some of the relevant excerpts from the CAD can be read here. http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2014/05/constituent-assembly-debates-on.html
Very well researched and well written.
This was well written, gave some perspective
Can it not be argued that the definition of "recognised party" in s. 2(b)(ii) of the Leaders and Chief Whips… Act, 1998 is to be restricted only to that Act? Further, the recognition mentioned in s. 2 of the Salaries and Allowances of LOP… Act, 1977 is the recognition of a person as a leader (of the party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength), not the recognition of such a party per se.