Consider the following statements : 1. In the first Lok Sabha, the single largest party in the opposition was the Swatantra Party. 2. In the Lok Sabha, a "Leader of the Opposition" was recognised for the first time in 1969. 3. In the Lok Sabha, if a party does not have a minimum of 75 members, its leader cannot be recognised as the Leader of the Opposition. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

This snippet explicitly records the claim as a test item (statement 1) about the Swatantra Party being the single largest opposition in the First Lok Sabha, indicating the question is contested in standard textbooks.

A student could take this as a prompt to check primary data (party formation date and 1952 seat tallies) to verify the claim.

States that in the first four Lok Sabha elections (1952, 1957, 1962, 1967) the Congress secured the required majority, implying opposition parties had limited seats in 1952–57.

A student could use this general rule to infer that the single largest opposition would have been a relatively small party and therefore check which opposition parties existed and their seat counts in 1952.

Explains that opposition parties in the 1950s had only 'token representation' in the Lok Sabha, a pattern relevant to evaluating any claim about a 'single largest' opposition party in that period.

Use this pattern to focus investigation on which opposition parties had non-negligible seat counts in 1952 (e.g., CPI, PSP, Jana Sangh) and compare them.

Gives a concrete example: Bharatiya Jana Sangh secured only 3 Lok Sabha seats in 1952, illustrating how small some non-Congress parties were.

A student can compare such specific 1952 seat numbers (here for Jana Sangh) with seat counts of other opposition parties to see which was largest.

Notes the Swatantra Party's political fortunes in the 1960s and 1970s, implying its relevance is later than the immediate post-1952 period.

A student could combine this with basic external facts (formation date / first election contested) to judge whether Swatantra existed or was electorally relevant in 1952.

This source lists the exact claim as a test statement (that the Lok Sabha 'Leader of the Opposition' was recognised for the first time in 1969), showing the claim is discussed in secondary materials.

A student could treat this as a hypothesis to check against primary records (e.g., parliamentary notices or Speaker records) for the year 1969.

Gives the formal definition of 'Leader of the Opposition' — the recognised Leader of the largest opposition party in a House — implying recognition depends on party strength and formal recognition rules.

A student could use this rule plus party composition data by year to see when an opposition party met conditions for formal recognition (e.g., greatest numerical strength).

Notes a major Congress split in 1969 and that a minority government continued with outside support, a political event that could plausibly affect opposition party strength and recognition.

Combine this political timeline with seat counts after the 1969 split to check whether it created a situation warranting first recognition of an LoP that year.

Provides the durations of Lok Sabha terms showing the 4th Lok Sabha spanned 1967–1970, placing 1969 within a specific parliamentary term.

A student can narrow searches to proceedings/records of the 4th Lok Sabha (1967–1970) to look for formal recognition acts or Speaker rulings in 1969.

Tabulates Lok Sabha sessions and office-holders, offering a timeline framework for locating when institutional changes (like formal recognition) might be recorded.

Using these dates, a student could consult parliamentary records or gazette notifications from the relevant session(s) around 1969 to verify recognition events.

This snippet explicitly lists the exact claim (that a party needs minimum 75 members for its leader to be recognised) as a proposition in a test/question, showing the claim exists in secondary literature and is a point of dispute.

A student could note this claim appears in study material and then seek the primary source (rules of the House/Acts or authoritative judgments) to confirm or refute it.

Defines 'Leader of the Opposition' as the leader of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength and 'recognised'—indicating recognition depends on party strength and formal recognition rules.

One could combine this with specific numerical recognition thresholds (from other snippets) and then check which formal rule sets the cut-off for recognising a Leader of the Opposition.

Gives concrete numerical thresholds for party recognition in Lok Sabha (not less than 55 members) and for recognized groups (30 members), showing that statutory/ parliamentary rules sometimes set numeric cut-offs for recognition.

A student can compare this 55-member recognition threshold with the claimed 75-member threshold to judge plausibility and then look up which specific Act or parliamentary rule sets the Leader of Opposition criterion.

Shows practical use of 'Leader of the Opposition' or 'leader of the largest opposition party' in appointment committees, indicating that whether a formal Leader of Opposition exists matters procedurally and that alternatives (largest opposition party leader) are used if LoP is not recognised.

A student could use this to infer that when a party doesn't meet recognition criteria, the largest opposition party's leader may substitute—so they should check when that substitution is triggered (i.e., what numeric threshold, if any, prevents formal LoP recognition).