Recognition Of LoP By Speaker/Chairman Is A Part Of Convention Not Governed By 'UP State Legislature Act': Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

22 Oct 2022 5:36 AM GMT

  • Recognition Of LoP By Speaker/Chairman Is A Part Of Convention Not Governed By UP State Legislature Act: Allahabad High Court

    The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 which mandates the Speaker/Chairman of the house to recognize the leader of a party having the greatest numerical strength, to be the leader of the opposition.The court further observed that if the Speaker recognizes any person who is the leader of...

    The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 which mandates the Speaker/Chairman of the house to recognize the leader of a party having the greatest numerical strength, to be the leader of the opposition.

    The court further observed that if the Speaker recognizes any person who is the leader of a party in opposition having the greatest numerical strength as the leader of the opposition, he is doing so on the basis of the practice prevailing

    The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus while dismissing a writ plea moved by a Samajwadi Party leader (Lal Bihari Yadav) challenging UP Govt's notification derecognizing him as the leader of opposition in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council.

    Petitioner/Samajwadi Party leader Lal Bihari Yadav was recognized as the leader of the opposition by a notification dated May 27, 2022, in the U.P. Legislative Council (upper) where the total strength of members is 100.

    Now, in July 2022, when the Samajwadi Party membership in the U.P. Legislative Council got reduced from 11 to 9, the UP Govt issued a notification derecognizing him as the leader of the opposition.

    The notification stated that the decision was taken as the strength of the Party in the council had fallen short of 10 - the minimum for the largest opposition party to get the post. Challenging the same, the petitioner moved to the High Court.

    Court's observations 

    The Court observed that as per the Constitution of India, there does not exist any mandate for the appointment of a leader of the opposition in the legislative houses (be it parliament, state legislative assembly, or legislative council).

    Regarding the UP State Legislature Act, the Court stressed that none of the sections of the Act in terms impose any duty on the Speaker or the chairman to recognize any Leader of the Opposition.

    It was further noted by the bench that merely because someone is the leader of the numerically largest party in opposition in the legislative council, the same does not give him an inalienable right to be recognized 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 which enjoins any mechanism or mandates the Speaker to recognize the leader of a party having the greatest numerical strength, to be the leader of opposition. The power of recognition of any such leader by the Speaker is not to be exercised under this Act. If the Speaker recognises any person who is the leader of a party in opposition having greatest numerical strength as the leader of opposition, he is doing so on the basis of the practice prevailing and, therefore, has to follow the other requirements of such practice and convention."

    In view of this, the Court concluded that there was no illegality in the decision to recognize the petitioner as the LoP as the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim any continuation as leader of opposition of the Council.

    "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.

    Case title - Lal Bihari Yadav v. Chairman/Sabhapati U.P. Legislative Council Vidhan Bhawan Lko & another [WRIT - C No. - 4493 of 2022]

    Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 473

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Next Story