In recent news, it has come to light that the Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of 17 dissident legislators. This decision was initially approved by former Karnataka Assembly Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar under the Tenth Schedule, also known as the Anti-Defection law.
Background: The 2019 No-confidence Motion and Subsequent Resignations
In 2019, the Karnataka Assembly was about to consider a motion of no-confidence against the ruling party. During this period, several legislators took the step of resigning from their respective parties. Their resignation, however, was not taken into account by the then Assembly Speaker due to an impending confidence vote scheduled within a few days. The ruling party could not garner the required trust vote during the floor test, leading to the Speaker disqualifying the dissenting members.
Tension Arises: Disqualification under Anti-Defection Law vs Role of Speaker
With the disqualification of the rebellious members, questions emerged regarding the terms of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule versus the Speaker’s authority to accept the members’ resignation. Furthermore, another point of controversy arose when the Speaker banned the disqualified MLAs from contesting elections until the end of the incumbent Assembly’s term in 2023. This led to a debate on whether disqualification under the Tenth Schedule can prevent legislators from participating in by-elections during the tenure of the current Legislative Assembly.
The Supreme Court’s Take on Tenth Schedule and Re-contesting Elections
The Supreme Court sustained the disqualification of the dissenting legislators but proclaimed that their removal does not bar them from contesting by-polls. According to the court, neither the Constitution nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the Anti-Defection Law suggests that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule would result in a bar from re-elections.
An Examination of Resignation vs Disqualification
The court also elaborated on the difference between resignation and disqualification, stating that a member might resign for numerous reasons, reflecting their individual choice or will. The court clarified that a member choosing to resign cannot be forced to stay in office, whereas disqualification leads to mandatory expulsion from office, regardless of their will.
Implication of the Anti-Defection Law
The Anti-Defection Law, enacted in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution, inserted the Tenth Schedule into the Indian Constitution. The law was intended to fight the issue of political defections. According to the law, a member belonging to any political party becomes disqualified for being a member if they voluntary surrender their party membership or act against any direction issued by their party without prior permission.
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date of enactment of Anti-Defection Law | 1985 |
| Amendment responsible for Anti-Defection Law | 52nd Amendment to the Constitution |
| Main purpose of the law | To combat political defections |
| Consequences of violating the law | Disqualification from being a House member |
The Speaker’s Powers Under the Anti-Defection Law
Any issue regarding disqualification due to defection is decided by the presiding officer of the House. Following the Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachilhu case in 1993, the Supreme Court announced that the decision of the presiding officer is not final and can be challenged in any court. It can be subject to judicial review based on grounds of malafide, perversity, and so on.
