The Leader of Opposition in the Goa Legislative Assembly is reportedly poised to propose a private member’s resolution that aims to urge the Central government to address various issues tied to the anti-defection law.
Understanding the Anti-Defection Act
Formally known as The Tenth Schedule, the Anti-Defection Act was incorporated into the Constitution via the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. This law provides stipulations for the disqualification of elected members on the grounds of defecting to another political party. Disqualification can occur if an elected member voluntarily renounces his membership of a political party or if the member votes or abstains from voting contrary to any direction issued by his party or its authorised person, without obtaining prior permission. Additionally, a member can face disqualification if they join a political party after being elected independently or after being nominated. The Act initially considered the defection of one-third of a political party’s elected members as a ‘merger’. However, the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 altered this, and now, at least two-thirds of a party’s members must favour a merger for it to be legally valid.
Controversies Surrounding the Anti-Defection Law
Critics of the Anti-Defection Act argue that it undermines representative democracy by constraining elected representatives’ freedom to vote according to their judgment. Instead, MPs or MLAs must strictly adhere to the party line. These critics contend that this requirement reduces legislators to mere numbers in support or opposition of a vote. Moreover, the Act is seen to undermine the core role of MPs and MLAs to scrutinise and decide on policy, bills, and budgets. Another point of contention is the controversial role of the Speaker, who often belatedly decides on disqualifications.
Anomalies in Recognising Splits and Mergers
The 91st constitutional amendment in 2004 brought about an anomaly in the Anti-Defection Act. While it recognised a ‘merger’ if agreed upon by two-thirds of a party’s strength, it ceased to recognise a ‘split’ in a legislature party.
Proposed Changes to the Anti-Defection Act
There are currently two main proposals for revising the Anti-Defection Act. The first suggests directing such matters to the high court or Supreme Court for expedited judgment. The second proposes that legislators with differing opinions from their party or its leadership should have the option to resign and seek a fresh mandate from the public.
Ways to Improve the Current System
Some suggest intra-party democracy must be strengthened to prevent defections and maintain government stability. Others argue for legislation to regulate political parties in India, including bringing political parties under RTI and strengthening intra-party democracy. Furthermore, transferring the power of the Chairman/Speaker to adjudicate defections to higher judiciary or Election Commission could preserve the separation of powers doctrine. Lastly, restricting the scope of the Anti-Defection Law could mitigate its negative impact on representative democracy. This could mean limiting the law’s application only to those laws where the government’s defeat can lead to a loss of confidence.
