The Anti-Defection Law, enacted through the 52nd Amendment Act in 1985 and further amended by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act in 2003, plays a crucial role in Indian politics. This law, listed under the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of India, punishes individual Members of Parliament (MPs) or Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for switching party loyalties.
The Recent Supreme Court Rebuke: A Case Study
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) admonished the Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly for delaying Anti-Defection proceedings against the Chief Minister and other MLAs. The SC conveyed its displeasure with the slow progress in the disqualification proceedings and urged the Speaker to deliver a verdict within two months. The court had previously directed the speaker to prepare a timeline to finish these proceedings.
An upheaval in Maharashtra’s political landscape prompted this case. In 2022, the Uddhav Thackeray-led government was replaced by another led by Eknath Shinde, a breakaway faction leader of Shiv Sena. Disqualification proceedings could impact not only the Shiv Sena MLAs but also Shinde’s position as Chief Minister.
Understanding the Anti-Defection Law
Introduced into the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule in 1985, the Anti-Defection Law aims to bolster governmental stability by discouraging legislators from hopping parties. The Act listed defection by one-third of a political party’s elected members as a merger in its initial form. However, the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, revised this to require at least two-thirds support for any party merger to be legally recognized.
The law does not penalize group MPs/MLAs for merging with another political party. The members disqualified under this law can contest elections from any political party for a seat in the same House. The presiding officer, however, decides on these disqualification matters within an unspecified timeframe.
Impact of Defection on the Political System
Defection, which is seen as a betrayal of electoral mandates, can cause governmental instability and hamper administrative function. It also promotes unhealthy practices like horse-trading among legislators.
Challenges Associated with the Anti-Defection Law
The Anti-Defection Law has its fair share of limitations. It does not clarify whether the merger is based on the national or local level of the party. The law mandates blind adherence to party lines, thus curtailing individual judgment and undermining representative and parliamentary democracy.
The position of Speaker hosts its own set of controversies. There is no specific timeframe listed for the Speaker to act on anti-defection cases. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, introduced exceptions to anti-defection rulings, but it does not recognize a ‘split’ in a legislature party, only a ‘merger’. Moreover, the law does not differentiates between dissent and defection, weakening Parliamentary discussions and deliberations on laws.
The Way Forward
To address these issues, experts have suggested that the law should apply only to votes impacting government stability such as the annual budget or no-confidence motions. Some commissions recommend assigning disqualification decisions to independent adjudicatory authorities such as the President (for MPs) or the Governor (for MLAs) based on the Election Commission’s advice. Such changes aim to improve the objectivity, independence, and efficiency of this important law.
Closing Insights
As the Indian political system evolves, the Anti-Defection Law must reflect these changes. Improving the law will not only strengthen India’s democratic setup but also make it more equitable and fair. By addressing its drawbacks and enhancing its strengths, the Anti-Defection Law can truly empower legislatures to uphold the best interests of the nations and its people.