Institutionalising parliamentary opposition ensures political pluralism, and an opposition needs constitutional protections to enable it to demand accountability and seek scrutiny over the executive. How did the Constituent Assembly of India envision the idea of parliamentary opposition? Did it take the issue seriously? Or, overshadowed by the burgeoning dominance of the Congress Party, was it apprehensive about providing constitutional space for the opposition? Some members of the assembly did demand that an institutional space be created to guarantee an effective opposition. But these demands were not given serious attention in the assembly. This paper argues that, in effect, the assembly brushed aside the question of a robust parliamentary opposition—creating what I term a ‘quasi‑democratic imagination’.
R Praveen Kumar (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: