{"id":3956,"date":"2026-05-09T05:45:45","date_gmt":"2026-05-09T05:45:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/?p=3956"},"modified":"2026-05-09T18:04:40","modified_gmt":"2026-05-09T18:04:40","slug":"absence-of-official-opposition-status-in-parliament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/?p=3956","title":{"rendered":"ABSENCE OF OFFICIAL OPPOSITION STATUS IN PARLIAMENT"},"content":{"rendered":"

TOPIC 13<\/h1>\n

Impact of Prolonged Denial of Leader of Opposition Recognition<\/strong><\/h3>\n

For a decade \u2014 from 2014 to 2024 \u2014 India\u2018s Lok Sabha functioned without a formally recognized Leader of the Opposition. The Congress party, reduced to 44 seats in 2014 and 52 seats in 2019, fell below the 10% threshold required for official recognition (55 seats in a 543-member House). The result was not merely a procedural inconvenience; it was a constitutional hemorrhage. Without an LoP, the parliamentary opposition lost its voice in the selection of India\u2019s most powerful watchdogs \u2014 the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the CBI Director, the Lokpal Chairperson, and the Chief Information Commissioner. The ruling party appointed these officials unilaterally, eroding the cross-party consensus that had historically preserved institutional independence. This article examines the statutory framework, the decade of exclusion, and the profound consequences for India\u2018s system of checks and balances.<\/strong><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

WHAT<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 The prolonged absence of a recognized Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha from 2014 to 2024, due to the largest opposition party (Congress) failing to meet the 10% seat threshold (55 seats in a 543-member House).<\/p>\n

WHO<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 The Congress party (reduced to 44 seats in 2014, 52 seats in 2019); the Modi government; Lok Sabha Speakers Sumitra Mahajan and Om Birla; and key statutory bodies whose selection committees require LoP participation.<\/p>\n

WHEN<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 The position was vacant from May 2014 to June 2024 \u2014 a full decade \u2014 until Rahul Gandhi was formally recognized as LoP following the 2024 general elections in which Congress won 99 seats.<\/p>\n

WHERE<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Across the Lok Sabha, and indirectly across key statutory institutions (CVC, CBI, Lokpal, CIC, NHRC) whose selection processes involve the LoP.<\/p>\n

WHY<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Officially, because the Congress fell below the statutory threshold. Critically, the absence allowed the government to appoint key oversight officials without opposition input, eroding the cross-party consensus that had historically protected institutional independence.<\/p>\n

HOW<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Through strict application of the 10% rule under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, and the government\u2019s refusal to appoint a LoP from the single largest opposition party when it fell below the threshold.<\/p>\n

\n

SECTION 1: THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK \u2013 WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.1 The Constitution\u2018s Silence<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Constitution of India is conspicuously silent on the Leader of the Opposition. It defines with great care the roles of the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, the Speaker, and the Governor, but nowhere does it mention the opposition or its leader. This omission was no inadvertence. It reflected the framers\u2019 conviction that democracy would evolve not through exhaustive textual enumeration but through practice, precedent, and political morality.<\/p>\n

1.2 The 1977 Act \u2013 Statutory Recognition<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, conferred legal recognition on the office for the first time \u2014 with a significant caveat. To qualify, the opposition party had to command at least one-tenth of the total membership of the House (55 seats in a 543-member Lok Sabha). This numerical threshold, intended to prevent the office from being splintered among micro-parties, soon hardened into a parliamentary convention and was reflected in the Speaker\u2018s directions.<\/p>\n

Key Provisions of the 1977 Act:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Provision<\/th>\nDetail<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Definition of LoP<\/strong><\/td>\nMember who leads the party in opposition to the government having the greatest numerical strength<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Minimum Threshold<\/strong><\/td>\nParty must have at least 10% of total House seats<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Recognition<\/strong><\/td>\nBy the Speaker of the Lok Sabha \/ Chairman of Rajya Sabha<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Salary & Allowances<\/strong><\/td>\nEquivalent to a Cabinet Minister<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Protocol Status<\/strong><\/td>\nRanks 7th in the Order of Precedence of India<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Source:<\/p>\n

1.3 The 10% Rule \u2013 Origin and Rationale<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 10% rule originated not from the Constitution but from the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, G.V. Mavalankar, who framed the rules of conducting business in parliament. It was he who incorporated the rule requiring a minimum 10% strength for a party to be recognized as the principal opposition.<\/p>\n

The rationale, as originally conceived:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • \n

    To prevent the office from being fragmented among numerous micro-parties<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    To ensure that the LoP genuinely represents a substantial opposition voice<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    To maintain the credibility and authority of the office<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    However, as the Frontline analysis notes, \u201cthe 10-per-cent rule is not chiselled into constitutional granite. The 1977 Act prescribes eligibility thresholds only for the purpose of salary and allowances; it does not extinguish the Speaker\u2019s interpretive authority.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n

    SECTION 2: THE DECADE OF ABSENCE (2014-2024)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    2.1 The Arithmetic Reality<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Election Year<\/th>\nCongress Seats<\/th>\n% of House<\/th>\n10% Threshold Met?<\/th>\nLoP Status<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    2014<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n8.1%<\/td>\nNo (needs 55)<\/td>\nNot recognized<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    2019<\/td>\n52<\/td>\n9.6%<\/td>\nNo (needs 55)<\/td>\nNot recognized<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    2024<\/td>\n99<\/td>\n18.2%<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nRecognized<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

    Source:<\/p>\n

    The Lok Sabha did not officially recognize a Leader of the Opposition for a full decade. The position had been vacant previously \u2014 between 1970 and 1977, between 1980 and 1989 \u2014 but never for this continuous length of time.<\/p>\n

    2.2 The Government\u2018s Legal Justification<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The government, supported by Speakers Sumitra Mahajan and Om Birla, maintained that the 10% threshold was binding. In 2014, when the Congress requested the LoP post despite having only 44 seats, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan denied the request on the ground that the party fell below the required number.<\/p>\n

    BJP Rajya Sabha member G.V.L. Narasimha Rao articulated the position:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cAs per law, the leader of the opposition party with most number of seats will get the Leader of the Opposition designation. Any party with less than 10% of seats is not given opposition party status. Even during 2014-19, when Congress party did not get 10% seats, they did not get opposition party status.\u201d<\/p>\n

    2.3 The Constitutional Morality Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The decision to strictly enforce the 10% rule during 2014-2024 stood in stark contrast to the political morality practiced by Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1950s. When the Communist Party of India won only 16 seats in the 1952 Lok Sabha \u2014 far below any numerical threshold \u2014 Nehru nevertheless recognized A.K. Gopalan as the Leader of the Opposition.<\/p>\n

    As Frontline observes: \u201cNothing in law obliged Nehru to recognise a Leader of the Opposition, yet he ensured that A.K. Gopalan of the CPI was accorded that status. That gesture was more than personal magnanimity: it embodied Nehru\u2019s conviction that democracy demanded institutional respect for dissent.\u201d<\/p>\n

    2.4 A Pattern Across States \u2014 The Andhra Pradesh Parallel<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The denial of LoP status to the principal opposition party was not confined to the national level. In Andhra Pradesh, following the 2024 assembly elections, the ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) refused to recognize Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy\u2018s YSR Congress Party \u2014 which won 11 seats in a 175-member House \u2014 as the official opposition. The 10% threshold would require 18 seats; the government invoked strict arithmetic to deny recognition.<\/p>\n

    The irony was not lost on observers:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe TDP itself was born in opposition, fashioned in 1982 by N.T. Rama Rao as a challenge to the entrenched dominance of the Congress. In those formative years, the party relied heavily on the visibility and stature that opposition recognition conferred. That a party once nourished by the dignity of opposition should now deny the same recognition to its rival is not merely opportunistic; it is a historical inversion.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n

    SECTION 3: CONSEQUENCES \u2013 INSTITUTIONS DEPRIVED OF OVERSIGHT<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The absence of a recognized LoP was not merely symbolic. It had profound practical consequences for India\u2018s system of checks and balances.<\/p>\n

    3.1 Key Appointments Made Without Opposition Consensus (2014-2024)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Institution<\/th>\nRole of LoP<\/th>\nConsequence of Absence<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)<\/strong><\/td>\nLoP is member of selection committee<\/td>\nGovernment appointees selected without opposition input<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)<\/strong><\/td>\nLoP part of high-powered committee<\/td>\nCBI Director appointed without cross-party consensus<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Lokpal<\/strong><\/td>\nLoP on selection committee<\/td>\nAnti-corruption ombudsman appointed unilaterally<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Central Information Commission (CIC)<\/strong><\/td>\nLoP on selection committee<\/td>\nTransparency watchdog appointments one-sided<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)<\/strong><\/td>\nLoP on selection committee<\/td>\nRights body appointments lacking opposition voice<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

    Source:<\/p>\n

    3.2 The LoP\u2018s Statutory Role \u2013 What Was Lost<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Leader of the Opposition\u2018s role in these appointments is not a matter of convention but of statute. Various acts, including the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, explicitly include the LoP (or the leader of the largest opposition party) as a member of the selection committee.<\/p>\n

    Rahul Gandhi, upon assuming the LoP role in 2024, gained the right to be a member of:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • \n

      Public Accounts Committee<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Public Undertakings Committee<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Estimates Committee<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Several Joint Parliamentary Committees<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Selection committees for CVC, CBI, CIC, NHRC, Lokpal, and other statutory bodies<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      For a decade, the largest opposition party \u2014 despite having 44 to 52 seats \u2014 was excluded from these statutory committees. The government filled these appointments unilaterally.<\/p>\n

      3.3 The Constitutional Deficit<\/strong><\/p>\n

      As the Frontline analysis notes: \u201cThe exclusion carried consequences far beyond symbolism: it denied the opposition its rightful place in crucial appointments to institutions such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Lokpal, and the Central Vigilance Commission, thereby corroding the principle of collective oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \n

      SECTION 4: THE RETURN OF THE LoP (2024) \u2014 SYMBOLIC BATTLES CONTINUE<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Following the 2024 general elections, the Congress won 99 seats \u2014 well above the 10% threshold \u2014 and Rahul Gandhi was formally recognized as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.<\/p>\n

      4.1 The Protocol Controversy at Republic Day 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

      On Republic Day 2026, a controversy erupted when Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge (LoP in Rajya Sabha) were seated in the third row at the official celebrations, rather than in the front rows reserved for key constitutional functionaries.<\/p>\n

      Congress\u2018s Objection:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Senior Congress figures argued that the seating arrangement departed from established protocol and diminished the stature of constitutionally recognized offices. Under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, the Leader of Opposition enjoys a status equivalent to that of a Cabinet minister for protocol purposes. By convention, this status has translated into prominent seating at national ceremonies, alongside senior ministers and constitutional office holders.<\/p>\n

      Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said the seating decision sent an \u201cunfortunate signal\u201d about how dissenting voices were viewed, adding that the issue was not about personal prominence but about institutional respect.<\/p>\n

      4.2 The Government\u2018s Position<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Centre did not issue a detailed public explanation on the seating arrangement. Officials pointed to a mix of security considerations, precedence lists, and logistical constraints. However, Congress leaders countered that such explanations cannot override codified protocol, especially when the roles involved are explicitly recognized by statute.<\/p>\n

      The Broader Pattern:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Congress framed the issue as part of a pattern rather than an isolated lapse: \u201cLeaders cited earlier instances where opposition figures alleged they were sidelined at official functions or consultations. They argue that such actions, taken together, risk normalizing a diminished public role for the opposition, even as Parliament relies on it for scrutiny and accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \n

      SECTION 5: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS \u2013 WESTMINSTER TRADITION VS. INDIAN PRACTICE<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
      <\/div>\n
      <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Aspect<\/th>\nWestminster (UK)<\/th>\nIndia<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      Constitutional Status<\/strong><\/td>\nRecognized by convention<\/td>\nStatutory (1977 Act)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Threshold Requirement<\/strong><\/td>\nNone \u2014 largest opposition party regardless of size<\/td>\n10% of House seats (55 in Lok Sabha)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Historical Precedent<\/strong><\/td>\nLoP recognized even with small numbers<\/td>\nNehru recognized CPI with 16 seats (1952); post-2014, strict arithmetic applied<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Recognition<\/strong><\/td>\nRelies on political morality<\/td>\nRelies on statutory interpretation, often rigid<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

      Source:<\/p>\n

      The Westminster system recognizes the Leader of the Opposition irrespective of party strength, on the principle that the opposition is a structural component of democracy rather than a privilege contingent on arithmetic. In India, by tethering recognition to thresholds, the law has ironically stripped dignity from those opposition voices most in need of protection.<\/p>\n

      \n

      SECTION 6: THE WAY FORWARD \u2013 REFORM PROPOSALS<\/strong><\/p>\n

      6.1 Lowering or Eliminating the Threshold<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Constitutional experts have proposed lowering the threshold to 5% (approximately 27 seats) or eliminating it entirely, reverting to the Westminster model where the largest opposition party is automatically recognized regardless of its numerical strength.<\/p>\n

      6.2 Codifying LoP Role in Statutory Appointments<\/strong><\/p>\n

      While the LoP\u2018s role in key appointments is already statutory, the absence of a LoP for a decade exposed a gap: there is no provision for an alternative mechanism when no party meets the 10% threshold. Some have proposed that in such cases, the leader of the largest opposition party (regardless of numbers) should serve on selection committees.<\/p>\n

      6.3 The Judicial Route \u2013 Supreme Court Intervention?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Supreme Court in 2014 dismissed a petition challenging the 10% rule, stating that a decision by the Speaker to run the House is not amenable to judicial review. The Court held that since the ruling is not notified anywhere, the courts cannot verify the correctness of such a ruling.<\/p>\n

      Whether a future challenge could succeed remains an open question.<\/p>\n

      \n

      CONCLUSION \u2013 THE HOLLOWING OF INSTITUTIONAL COUNTERWEIGHTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The decade without a Leader of the Opposition (2014-2024) was not a gap in parliamentary procedure. It was a systematic hollowing of institutional counterweights.<\/p>\n

      What Was Lost:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
      <\/div>\n
      <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Loss<\/th>\nExplanation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      Institutional Oversight<\/strong><\/td>\nCVC, CBI, Lokpal, CIC, NHRC appointments made without opposition input<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Parliamentary Balance<\/strong><\/td>\nNo LoP to negotiate with Speaker on House proceedings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Shadow Cabinet<\/strong><\/td>\nNo formal alternative government prepared to take over<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Cross-Party Consensus<\/strong><\/td>\nKey appointments lost the legitimacy of multi-party agreement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

      What Remains of the Westminster Ideal:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Westminster tradition holds that the opposition is not a nuisance but a constitutional counterweight \u2014 \u201cHis Majesty\u2018s Loyal Opposition.\u201d In India, the opposition\u2018s statutory recognition depends on crossing a numerical threshold that the framers never intended. The result is a system in which a strong government can, by electoral mathematics alone, weaken the very institutions designed to hold it accountable.<\/p>\n

      The Irony of 2024:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      When Rahul Gandhi finally assumed the LoP role in 2024, he walked into an office whose powers had been diminished by a decade of disuse. The institutions that depend on LoP participation \u2014 the CVC, the CBI, the Lokpal \u2014 had operated for ten years without opposition oversight. Restoring their balance would require not just a recognized LoP, but a fundamental rebuilding of cross-party trust.<\/p>\n

      The Unanswered Question:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      If a future election reduces the largest opposition party below 10% again, will India endure another decade without official opposition? And what will remain of its democratic institutions if it does?<\/p>\n

      \n

      SUMMARY TABLE: LoP STATUS \u2013 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND IMPACT<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
      <\/div>\n
      <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Aspect<\/th>\nDetail<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      Constitutional Provision<\/strong><\/td>\nNone \u2014 the Constitution is silent on LoP<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Statutory Basis<\/strong><\/td>\nSalary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Minimum Threshold<\/strong><\/td>\n10% of House seats (55 in 543-member Lok Sabha)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Period of Absence<\/strong><\/td>\n2014-2024 (full decade)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Largest Opposition Party<\/strong><\/td>\nCongress (44 seats 2014; 52 seats 2019)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Key Appointments Affected<\/strong><\/td>\nCVC, CBI, Lokpal, CIC, NHRC, and other statutory bodies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      LoP\u2019s Role in Committees<\/strong><\/td>\nPublic Accounts, Public Undertakings, Estimates, Joint Parliamentary Committees<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Protocol Status<\/strong><\/td>\nEquivalent to Cabinet Minister (7th in Order of Precedence)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Current LoP (2024-)<\/strong><\/td>\nRahul Gandhi (Congress)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
      \n

      END OF TOPIC 13<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Next Topic (Topic 14):<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe Governor\u2018s Office \u2013 Constitutional Neutrality or Political Tool?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      TOPIC 13 Impact of Prolonged Denial of Leader of Opposition Recognition For a decade \u2014 from 2014 to 2024 \u2014 India\u2018s Lok Sabha functioned without a formally recognized Leader of the Opposition. The Congress party, reduced to 44 seats in 2014 and 52 seats in 2019, fell below the 10% threshold required for official recognition […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3950,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"googlesitekit_rrm_CAowk73GDA:productID":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[67,66],"tags":[1079,1072,1074,1075,1073,1077,1071,1064,1061,1062,759,1078,1069,1053,1067,1068,1076,1065,1052,1070],"class_list":["post-3956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-social-issues","category-society-responsibility","tag-and-electoral-democracy","tag-bjp-government","tag-cbi-director-appointment","tag-central-vigilance-commission","tag-checks-and-balances","tag-chief-information-commissioner","tag-congress-party","tag-constitutional-crisis","tag-democratic-institutions","tag-governance-in-india","tag-india-politics","tag-indian-constitution","tag-indian-parliament","tag-institutional-independence","tag-leader-of-opposition","tag-lok-sabha","tag-lokpal","tag-opposition-in-india","tag-parliamentary-accountability","tag-parliamentary-democracy"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3956","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3956"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4006,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3956\/revisions\/4006"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3950"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/untoldpages.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}