The recent news spotlight has been on Rajasthan’s 19 rebel MLAs from the ruling Congress party. These politicians have challenged the disqualification notices served to them by the Assembly Speaker under the Anti Defection Law in the state’s High Court. The notice was grounded on their absence from consecutive Congress Legislature Party (CLP) meetings and an alleged “conspiracy to topple the government.”
Rebel MLAs’ Defense
In their writ petition, the MLAs referred to an infringement of their freedom of speech and expression. They claimed they hadn’t resigned their House membership and their failure to show up at two CLP gatherings didn’t make them liable to disqualification due to defection. This led them to question Clause 2(1)(a) of the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule and the validity of Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on Grounds of Changing Party) Rules, 1989. The said clause stipulates that a member can be disqualified if he or she voluntarily leaves his or her political party. They also protested against their possible disqualification solely for disagreeing with decisions and policies of some leaders outside the assembly.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Matter
According to the 1992 Supreme Court verdict-Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillu and Others, judicial review isn’t available prior to the Speaker/Chairman’s decision-making stage. Interference at an interlocutory stage of proceedings is impermissible, except for cases with serious, immediate, and irreversible consequences. As a result, constitutional courts are unable to review disqualification proceedings under the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) until the final decision is made by the Speaker or Chairman.
Why the Role of Courts Is Limited
The Bench clarified that the reason for this limitation is that the Speaker’s office holds high respect and esteem in parliamentary traditions. The scope of judicial review, even against a Speaker or Chairman’s order in anti-defection proceedings, would be confined to jurisdictional errors.
Anti-Defection Law Explained
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced in 1985 via the 52nd amendment to the Constitution, which inserted the Tenth Schedule into the Indian Constitution. Its primary aim was to fight against “the evil of political defections”. As per this law, a member becomes disqualified for being a part of the House on two grounds: if they voluntarily resign from their political party, or if they vote/abstain from voting contrary to their party’s direction without prior permission.
Exceptions to the Anti-Defection Law
There are certain exemptions to disqualification on the grounds of defection. If a member exits their party due to its merger with another party where two-thirds of the members have agreed to the merger, it is considered an exception. Another exception is if a member voluntarily leaves their party after being elected as the presiding officer of the House or rejoins it after ceasing to hold office.
Speaker’s Powers Relating to the Anti-Defection Law
As per the law, any issues relating to defection-induced disqualification should be determined by the presiding officer of the House.