The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, also known as the anti-defection law, was established to preserve the sanctity of the democratic framework by preventing political defections that could be motivated by the promise of office or other similar incentives. The law outlines specific conditions under which legislators are prohibited from switching political parties, and failure to adhere to these rules can lead to their disqualification as members of their respective legislative houses.
Introduction to the Anti-Defection Law
The anti-defection law was introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, in response to a growing concern about the stability of governments and respect for the mandate of the electorate. Its main goal is to discourage the practice of defection by politicians for personal gain, thereby upholding the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that representatives remain faithful to the commitments made to their constituents and their political parties.
Provisions of the Anti-Defection Law
The Tenth Schedule lays down the framework for what constitutes defection and the subsequent penalties. A Member of Parliament (MP) or a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) is deemed to have defected if they either voluntarily give up the membership of their party or disobey the directives of the party leadership on a vote. This law applies to both individual members and groups of legislators who defect. However, the law allows a group of two-thirds of the members of a legislative party to merge with another political party without facing disqualification.
Disqualification of Defected Members
When a legislator is found to have defected, they are subject to disqualification from their position as an MP or MLA. The decision to disqualify a member on grounds of defection is taken by the Speaker of the House of Parliament or the State Legislature, as applicable. This decision can be contested in the courts, but the judiciary has maintained that the Speaker’s role in this matter is that of a tribunal and their decision is subject to judicial review only on the grounds of malafide, perversity, or violation of the constitutional mandate.
Exceptions and Safeguards
The anti-defection law includes certain exceptions to prevent its misuse. If a member goes against the party lines due to a genuine difference of opinion or ideological conflict, and if such an action does not benefit them in terms of office or other monetary gains, they may not necessarily face disqualification. Moreover, any member elected as the Speaker or Chairman can resign from their party, and rejoin once they demit that office without being disqualified.
Impact on Independent Legislators
The law also covers independent MLAs, stating that if an independent candidate joins a political party after the election, they would face disqualification. An independent legislator is expected to maintain their independence throughout their tenure. Similarly, nominated members who are not affiliated with any party at the time of taking their seat in the house have six months to decide whether to join a party, and if they do so after this period, they are liable to be disqualified.
Challenges and Criticisms
Despite its intent to curb unethical political practices, the anti-defection law has faced criticism for concentrating excessive power in the hands of party leaders, which can stifle legitimate dissent and debate within parties. Additionally, the role of the Speaker in deciding defection cases has been questioned due to the potential for bias, as the Speaker typically belongs to the ruling party. Critics argue for a more impartial mechanism to adjudicate cases of defection.
The anti-defection law remains a crucial tool in maintaining the allegiance of legislators to their parties and constituents, aiming to foster a stable political environment. It seeks to ensure that elected officials cannot arbitrarily change allegiances, thus protecting the mandate of the electorate and supporting the ideals of a cohesive and principled democracy.