1. Anti-Defection Law
The Anti-Defection Law is a crucial component of the Indian political landscape, designed to address the issue of party hopping and defections among elected representatives. Enacted to preserve the stability of the political system, the law aims to discourage elected officials from abandoning their original political affiliations for personal gains. Let's delve into the key aspects of the Anti-Defection Law in India.
2. Origin And Evolution
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1985. The amendment added the Tenth Schedule, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law, to the Constitution. This legislative move was prompted by the increasing instances of political defections, which were seen as a threat to the democratic fabric of the country.
3. The Law
The anti-defection law enshrined through the introduction of the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of India comprises 8 paragraphs. The following is a brief summary of the contents of the law:
Paragraph-1: Interpretation.This section handles the definitions of distinct terms applied in laying out the legislation.
Paragraph-2: Disqualification on grounds of defection.This section deals with the crux of the legislation, specifying factors on which a member could be disqualified from the Parliament or the State assembly. Provisions in para 2.1(a) provide disqualification of a member if he or she "voluntarily gives up the membership of such political party", whereas paragraph 2.1(b) provisions, addresses a situation when a member votes or abstains from any crucial voting contrary to the directive circulated by his/her respective political party. Paragraph 2.2 states that any member, after being elected as a representative of a certain political party, shall be disqualified if he/she joins any other political party after the election. Paragraph 2.3 states that a nominated member shall be disqualified if he/she joins any political party after six months from the date he/she takes his seat.
Paragraph-3: Omitted after amending the schedule by the Ninety-first Amendment act 2003, which exempted disqualifications arising out of splits with one-third of the members defecting from a political party.
Paragraph-4: Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of merger.This paragraph excludes from disqualification in the case of mergers of political parties. Provided if the said merger is with two-thirds of the members of the legislative party who have consented to merge with another political party.
Paragraph-5: Exemption.This paragraph provides exemptions to the Speaker, Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of various legislative Houses.
Paragraph-6:Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection.This provision mandates the Chairman or the Speaker of the respective legislative house to be the ultimate decision-making authority in case of any disqualification that arises.
Paragraph-7:Bar of jurisdiction of courts.This provision bars any court jurisdiction in the case of disqualification of a member under this schedule. This paragraph was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in Kihoto Hollohon vs Zacillu, 1992. The Court held that the decision of the speaker or chairman is subject to judicial review under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Paragraph-8: Rules. This paragraph deals with framing the rules for disqualification. The schedule allows the Chairman and the Speaker to frame rules concerning their respective legislative houses to deal with the disqualification of members of their various houses of the legislature.
4. Key Provisions
A. Disqualification of Defectors: The law empowers the presiding officer of the legislature the Speaker in the case of Parliament and state legislatures to disqualify a member if they voluntarily give up their party membership or violate the party's whip on voting.
B. Exceptions to Disqualification: The law does provide certain exceptions, allowing a member to defect without facing disqualification. For instance, if a political party merges with another party, and the member chooses to join the merged entity, they are exempt from disqualification.
C. Independent Members: Independent members who join a political party within a certain time frame after their election are also protected from disqualification.
D. Power of the Speaker: The Anti-Defection Law places a significant responsibility on the Speaker to make decisions on disqualification. However, this has been a point of contention, as the Speaker's role is often criticized for being influenced by political considerations.
5. Challenges And Criticism
A. Speaker's Independence: One of the major criticisms of the Anti-Defection Law revolves around the role of the Speaker. The Speaker, being a member of a political party, may face challenges in maintaining impartiality while deciding on disqualification matters.
B. Political Maneuvering: Critics argue that the law has not entirely prevented political defections but has led to strategic maneuvers by political parties to achieve their interests, often at the cost of democratic principles.
C. Delay in Disqualification Proceedings: In some cases, disqualification proceedings have been criticized for delays, allowing defectors to enjoy the perks of power for an extended period before facing consequences.
6. Amendment
To make the existing law more effective in dealing with the frequent defections, an amendment was proposed to the Tenth Schedule in 2003. A committee headed by Prnab Mukherjee proposed the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Bill, noting that the exception provided by allowing a split, granted in paragraph three of the Schedule, was being grossly exploited, causing multiple divisions in various political parties. Further, the committee observed, the lure of personal gain played a significant aspect in defections and resulted in political horse-trading. The bill was passed in one day by the Lok Sabha on 16 December 2003, and similarly passed by the Rajya Sabha on 18 December. Presidential consent was obtained on 1 January 2004 and the Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act 2003 was notified in the Gazette Of Indiaon 2 January 2004.
The amended act maintained that a member disqualified due to defection should not hold any ministerial post or any other remunerative political post until the term of his office as a member expired. The 2003 amended act excluded the provisions from the Tenth Schedule for authorizing the defections arising out of splits. The amended act also stipulated that the number of ministers in states and union territories should not exceed fifteen percent of the total number of members in the respective house.
7. Conclusion
