It is said that the legislature, specifically the Lok Sabha, exercises control over the executive. While this assertion holds considerable truth, the dynamic is far more nuanced. The executive, by virtue of commanding a majority in the House and determining the legislative agenda, exerts significant influence over the legislature. Thus, even though the government (executive) is answerable to the legislature, the reality is that the government often guides and steers the legislature’s activities, particularly in the Lok Sabha.
The remedy to this asymmetrical set-up resides in one of the unacknowledged yet indispensable part of Parliament: the Opposition. In a parliamentary democracy, the role of the Opposition is not only to act as a counterbalance to the executive but also to assert itself as an alternative.
But it would be a misreading of the parliamentary structure to construe that the only essential function of the Opposition is to be a disruptive force. In reality, a large proportion of government bills is passed with minimal friction and the ruling and the Opposition parties share substantial consensus on many national policies. This collaborative overtone is what sustains legislative continuity and policy stability. Nevertheless, the hallmark of a robust democracy is not unanimity, but dissent. This is where the Opposition comes into the frame on behalf of ‘we the people’— interrogating excessive executive decisions, demanding accountability, and spotlighting issues the government might overlook or suppress.
In India, where electoral outcomes often produce dominant majorities, the Opposition faces a structural and perceptual challenge. Therefore, the Opposition must continuously operate in a politically adverse environment while keeping its visibility and credibility intact. But this task is not futile. Indian electoral history shows that the Opposition is never permanently out of contention. Significantly, Parliament remains the best turf for the Opposition to display its viewpoint and dissent effectively. It is here that the Opposition, regardless of its strength, can put the government on the defensive — not through rhetoric but through incisive debate, procedural interventions, and reasoned argumentation.
The leader of the Opposition, though often sidelined in terms of formal authority, serves as an important symbol of the parliamentary form of government. The LoP’s rights stem from parliamentary conventions, rules of procedure, and democratic necessity. These include the right to question, debate, censure, and scrutinise government actions through tools like the Question Hour, debates, adjournment motions, and no-confidence motions.
In a dynamic democracy, public opinion is seldom monolithic. The so-called ‘swing voters’ — segments of the electorate not firmly aligned with any one party — can be significantly influenced by the Opposition’s arguments. When effective, such interventions may alter the trajectory of political sentiment and, over time, shift electoral outcomes.
In the recent past though, the Opposition has faced systematic marginalisation through a combination of legislative steamrolling, curtailed debate time, and selective enforcement of parliamentary rules. The ruling party has frequently bypassed meaningful discussion by rushing key bills through without adequate scrutiny or referring them to parliamentary committees. Disruptions have often been used as a pretext to suspend Opposition MPs or truncate sessions, further weakening dissent. Additionally, investigative agencies have increasingly targeted Opposition leaders, creating a chilling effect on political criticism. This erosion of institutional space has undermined Parliament’s deliberative role, reducing the Opposition to a symbolic presence.
The situation is alarming. Without adequate course correction, the erasure of
the first line of defence — the Opposition — against executive excesses is imminent.
Vaidushya Parth is a Delhi-based lawyer and the Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh, in the Supreme Court