Convention Is Not Constitutional Immunity

Special Correspondent

If parliamentary conventions carried constitutional immunity, Indian politics would be far less noisy—and far more convenient for those who mistake designation for distinction. Unfortunately for such assumptions, the Indian Constitution is refreshingly blunt on one crucial point: it does not recognise the office of the Leader of the Opposition at all.

Not by accident. Not by oversight. Simply because it doesn’t.

The much-celebrated post of Leader of the Opposition (LoP), often projected as a constitutional counterweight to the government, owes its existence not to the Constitution of India but to an ordinary statute—the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. Section 2 of the Act merely defines who may be recognised as LoP by the Speaker or Chairman. It confers allowances, status for committee participation, and little else.

Crucially, it confers no constitutional privilege, no procedural immunity, and no exemption from parliamentary discipline.

The frequently invoked “10 per cent rule”, often cited as though etched into constitutional stone, fares no better. It is not law. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is not even part of a statute. It is a parliamentary convention—useful, respected, but legally unenforceable. Conventions guide practice; they do not override procedure.

This legal reality becomes relevant when conduct inside the House crosses from political rhetoric into procedural territory.

On Monday, the Lok Sabha witnessed Rahul Gandhi, the recognised Leader of the Opposition, waving what was presented as a book authored by former Army Chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane. The insinuations drawn from it were serious. The difficulty was mundane but fatal: the book has not been published, and Penguin India publicly denied being its publisher.

Parliamentary debate thrives on disagreement, accusation, and even provocation—but it rests on a non-negotiable foundation: verifiable material. When unverified or non-existent documents are introduced on the floor of the House, the issue ceases to be ideological and enters the realm of parliamentary procedure.

At this point, titles lose relevance.

Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, particularly Rules 373, 374, and 374A, the Speaker is empowered to maintain order, regulate debate, and take action against members whose conduct is deemed disorderly or misleading. These rules apply uniformly. They do not contain a footnote exempting the Leader of the Opposition.

Nor does the Constitution.

Article 105, which governs parliamentary privileges, protects freedom of speech within the House, not freedom from consequence when that speech violates established rules. Privilege is a shield against external prosecution—not a licence for procedural recklessness.

The uncomfortable truth, often glossed over in political outrage, is this: the Leader of the Opposition is constitutionally indistinguishable from any other MP. His authority flows from political relevance, not constitutional elevation. His responsibility, therefore, is no less—arguably more.

There is no provision in constitutional law, statutory law, or parliamentary rules that insulates the LoP from suspension, expulsion, or censure if the Speaker determines that the House has been misled or its dignity compromised. Parliamentary democracy demands accountability, not hierarchy-based immunity.

Irony, however, thrives in Indian politics. Constitutional morality is invoked loudly when convenient, while constitutional text is quietly ignored when inconvenient. Convention is elevated to scripture; procedure is dismissed as vendetta.

But the Constitution remains stubbornly unmoved by political sentiment.

A robust Opposition is essential to democracy. So is disciplined conduct in Parliament. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one depends on the other.

In the final analysis, Parliament is governed by rules, not reputations; by procedure, not performance. And under that framework, the Leader of the Opposition remains precisely what the Constitution recognises him to be: a Member of Parliament—no more, no less.

Everything else is convention.

And convention, unlike the Constitution, cannot be waved around like a book that does not exist.