Join the discussion
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Written by
Nick Robinson
Guest Post: A Response Regarding the 10% Rule
Further reading
In this piece, the author revisits the legacy of Bhulabhai Desai and his masterful defense at the Indian National Army Trials of 1945, exploring how Bhulabhai’s arguments not only reframed the INA’s...
The blog analyses the Mineral Area Development Authority decision, specifically analysing the question of when states can start taxing mining entities, along with an analysis of the doctrine of...
Blurb: The article argues for disability-inclusive prison reforms, emphasizing the right to reasonable accommodation and the right to dignity for incarcerated persons with disabilities in light of...
Blurb: The article argues for disability-inclusive prison reforms, emphasizing the right to reasonable accommodation and the right to dignity for incarcerated persons with disabilities in light of...
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
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.