The designation of 'Leader of the House' is an in-house arrangement without specific legislative or constitutional sanction, and the constitutional scheme does not create any legal impediment for a non-member Chief Minister to act as the Leader of the House.

A. A. DESAI, C. J.

( 1 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 is not one who was authorized by the Election Commission to fill in a seat in the Assembly in terms of Article 173 of the Constitution of India. He was not given an oath under Form VII (B) of the Third Schedule. On 14th and 15th March, 2002 respondent No. 2 as a leader of the Sadan exercised the privilege which is without authority of law. The respondent No. 2 has no right to sit in the Assembly as a Leader of the House. With such averments, on 16-5-2002, the petitioner prayed for a writ to the Speaker-respondent No. 1, not to permit the Treasury Bench or State of Uttaranchal to elect the Leader of the House who is not a Member of the Assembly and to permit him to participate in a general debate of the Legislative Assembly.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is principally seeking a prohibitory injunction against the Speaker of Assembly. However, as per the pleadings respondent No. 2 assumed office of Leader of the House on 14-3-2002, even before respondent No. 1 adorned the office of Speaker. Relief of injunction not to permit to elect as sought is thus futile. What is left out from the relief clause, is that the respondent No. 2 not be permitted to participate in the debate of Assembly.

( 3 ) MR. L. P. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel could not dispute that the office of the Leader of the House or for that matter of Opposition are not the creations of the Constitution or Statute. He, however, placed reliance on Article 118 of the Constitution which provides that each of the House of Parliament may make rules for the regulations, its procedure and the conduct of its business. Parliament (Lok Sabha) in pursuant thereof framed Rules known as Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. As per Clause 2 (1) of the Rules, "leader of the House" means the Prime Minister, if he is a Member of the House, or a Minister who is a Member of the House, and is nominated by Prime Minister to function as the Leader of the House.

( 4 ) RULE 25 reads thus :"on days allotted for the transaction of Government business such business shall have precedence and the Secretary-General, shall arrange that business in such order as the Speaker may, after consultation with the Leader of House, determine. "

( 5 ) THE Leader of the House has thus been amongst other assigned specific role, for transaction of business in the House. Taking this premises, Mr. Naithani tried to urge that respondent No. 2 since not a member duly elected or as authorized under Article 173 of the Constitution, cannot be a Leader of the House.

( 6 ) MR. Naithani, even otherwise could not point out any pari materia provision under the Rules framed in terms of the Article 208 by the State Legislature. His contention was procedural practice in Parliament or rules framed under Article 118 are need to be made applicable for the business of State Legislature in absence of any rule in that behalf under Article 208. Extremely, it is difficult to accept the submission. Article 208 no doubt has been pari materia to Article 118 in pith and substance. However, they in function and operations are independent. In absence of such rule relating to Leader of House under Article 208, rules framed under Article 118 cannot occupy the vacuum or fill-in the void. Moreover, Cl. (2) of Article 208 provides :" (2) Until rules are made under clause (1), the rules of procedure and Standing Orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to Legislature for the corresponding Province shall have effect in relation to the Legislature of the State subject to such modification and adaptations as may be made therein by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, or the Chairman of the Legislature Council, as the case may be. "

( 7 ) CRYSTALLY clear it is that in absence of any Rule, the Speaker has the exclusive prerogative to adopt such Rules as they were with necessary modifications, if any. Writ under Article

Click Here to Read the rest of this document