Anti-defection law
Overview:
The Anti-defection law was introduced in 1985 to address frequent political instability caused by legislators frequently switching parties. This Anti-defection brought a change in the way how political leaders and their parties functioned there after.
Relevance:
GS02 (Indian Polity)
Dimensions of the Article:
- What is Anti-defection?
- Grounds for Defection
- Key Challenges in effective Implementation:
- Way forward
What is Anti-defection?
- Anti-defection was introduced through the 52nd Amendment, by adding a the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution.
- It was mainly introduced to tackle the problem of legislators continuously switching parties (“Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram”), creating instability.
- The law punishes individual Members of Parliament (MPs)/Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for leaving one party for another.
- However, it allows a group of MP/MLAs to merge with another political party without inviting the penalty for defection.
- And it does not penalise political parties for encouraging or accepting defecting legislators.
- As per the 1985 Act, a ‘defection’ by one-third of the elected members of a political party was considered a ‘merger’.
- However, the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003 revised this requirement, now mandating that at least two-thirds of a party’s members must support a “merger” for it to be legally recognized.
Grounds for Defection:
- If an elected member decides to give up his membership of a political party voluntarily.
- If the elected person, without obtaining prior permission, decides to vote or abstain from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorized to do so.
- If any independently elected member joins any political party.
- If any nominated member joins any political party after the expiry of six months.
Key Challenges in effective Implementation:
- Delay in decision-making: Speakers of the house have taken months and years to decide on defection cases, allowing defectors to retain their positions, which undermines the intent of the law.
- Discretionary power of the Speaker or Chairperson: It has raised concerns about being impartial. And, another issue is the lack of transparency regarding party whips, which often leaves room for disputes on whether members were adequately informed.
- Judiciary’s reluctance: The backfoot of judiciary in interfering with defection cases, has led to delayed or arbitrary outcomes, affecting the law’s overall effectiveness.
Way forward:
- Two primary amendments have been proposed to improve the law.
- First, establishing a fixed four-week timeframe for decision-making on defection cases to prevent delays and misuse of discretionary power.
- Second, introducing transparency in issuing party whips to ensure members are clearly informed of the party’s stance.
- Furthermore, previous committee reports have recommended additional measures, including an independent tribunal for anti-defection cases, though reinforcing Speaker accountability may be more effective in maintaining legislative autonomy.
Conclusion:
The anti-defection law has played an essential role in preserving government stability, but its existing gaps call for urgent reform. Addressing these loopholes is crucial to protect the electorate’s mandate and maintain democratic values.