‘Defection’ has been defined as, “To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group”. Defection in context of polity refers to a situation where a member of a political party gives up his position in the party from which he is elected to join an opposing party.
The anti-defection law was passed in 1985 through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act. It added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution and amended four articles in the Constitution. (It amended Articles 101, 102, 190 and 191 which are related to the vacating of seats and disqualification of MPs and MLAs. )
The Anti defection law lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on the grounds of defection by the Presiding officer of the house. The law applies to both Parliament and state legislative assemblies. The Presiding officer of the house decides on the question of the defection.
Need for Anti Defection Law
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, which added Anti-Defection Law to the Constitution, mentioned that the evil of political defections was a matter of national concern and needed to be curbed. Political defections were causing instability in the political system and making it difficult to form a stable government.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) had also noted that since candidates get elected on the basis of the party that gave them the ticket, defecting flouts the very mandate on the basis of which a member was elected
Main features of Anti Defection Law:
- Disqualification: Article 102 (and 191) gives authority to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to disqualify any member.
- Members of Political Parties: A member of a house belonging to a political party becomes disqualified from being a member
- If he voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party.
- Votes, or does not vote in the house, contrary to the direction of his political party. However, if the member has taken prior permission, or is condoned by the party within 15 days from such voting or abstention, the member shall not be disqualified.
- Independent Member: An independent member (Member not belonging to any political party) of the house becomes disqualified if he joins a political party after the elections.
- Nominated member: A nominated member of the house becomes disqualified if he joins any political party six months after his nomination to the house.
- Members of Political Parties: A member of a house belonging to a political party becomes disqualified from being a member
- Exceptions
- Merger : A merger of a political party with another takes place when two-thirds of the members of the party have agreed to such a merger. Thus, if a member leaves the party due to the merger , he cannot be disqualified under the anti defection law.
- Presiding Officer : A member can give up the membership of a political party after being elected as the presiding officer of the house. He can later rejoin the party after his term as the presiding officer of the house ends. This exception is provided to ensure impartiality in the office of the presiding officer of a house.
- Deciding Authority: The presiding officer of the house(Speaker in Lok Sabha, Chairman in Rajya Sabha) is the deciding authority in matters related to disqualifications due to defections.
- Rule Making Power: The presiding officer of the house(Speaker in Lok Sabha, Chairman in Rajya Sabha) has the power to make rules to give effect to the Tenth Schedule. However,it must be placed before the house for 30 days. The House can modify or disapprove the rules.
Merits | Demerits |
Prevents Defection
| Violates freedom of expression
|
Promotes stability of the government
|
Lowers accountability of elected candidate towards his electorate:
|
Promotes Party Discipline
| Weak Oversight
|
Reduces Political Corruption
| Against Internal Party Democracy:
|
Promotes citizen trust in elected legislators:
| Proliferation of Small political parties:
|
Improves Governance
| Individual vs Group Defection
|
Realignment of parties in House
| ·
Discrimination between a nominated and an independent member:
|
Reduces expenditure on frequent elections
| Bias in decision making authority
|
Constitutional recognition to Political Parties
|
Ambiguities in Anti-defection Law
AMBIGUITIES | ORDERS & JUDGEMENTS |
Right to freedom of speech and expression vs Tenth Schedule | The question raised was whether the Tenth Schedule curbed the right to freedom of speech and expression of the individual legislators. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu and Others, 1993 ruled that the provisions do not violate a legislator’s right to free speech and expression. |
Lack of complete clarity | Some provisions in the act lack clarity and can have multiple meanings.For example, the phrase“voluntarily giving up the membership of the party” can be interpreted in many ways and not just a formal resignation from the party. In Ravi S Naik vs Union of India, 1994, the Supreme Court said that the conduct of the member can also be amounted to leaving the party. |
Judicial Review | Initially, the law made the decision of the Presiding Officer binding and not subject to judicial review. This condition was struck down by the Supreme Court in Kihota Hollohon vs. Zachilhu and Others, 1993 .The Supreme Court said that the Speaker while adjudicating under the Tenth Schedule functions as a tribunal. Therefore, it is subject to judicial review.However, the Supreme Court allowed partial judicial review (i. e, The judicial intervention could take place only after the presiding officer has passed its final order). |
Speaker’s review of its own decision | The issue raised was whether the speaker can review its own decision to disqualify a member under the tenth schedule.The Supreme Court in Dr. Kashinath G Jhalmi v. Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly, 1993 ruled that the law does not provide for such power. |
Obeying party whip | In G Viswanathan versus Honorable Speaker, Tamil Nadu State Assembly, 1996 the Supreme Court ruled that an expelled member was bound by the party’s whip even after expulsion. His failure to adhere to it would result in his/her disqualification from the House. |
Global Scenario:Anti-Defection Law
BANGLADESH |
|
SOUTH AFRICA |
|
UNITED KINGDOM |
|
AUSTRALIA, GERMANY |
|
Scope of Reforms
Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990)
- It recommended that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule should take place only in the following situations :
- If a member voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party.
- If a member abstains from voting, or votes contrary to the party whip in a motion of vote of confidence or motion of no-confidence.
- It further added that the President/ Governor should decide on the disqualification under the Tenth Schedule on the advice of the Election Commission.
Halim Committee on Anti-Defection Law (1998)
- It recommended to clearly define the following phrases in the law :
- Voluntarily giving up membership of a political party.
- Political party
- It prescribed to place certain restrictions(such as-prohibition on joining another party, prohibition on holding office is the government) on the defecting members.
Law Commission (170th Report,1999)
- Exceptions to the law such as in the case of mergers should be deleted.
- Pre-poll electoral alliances should be considered as political parties under the law.
- Political parties should issue limited number of whips for important situations.
Election Commission
- The President/Governor should decide on the disqualification under the Tenth Schedule on the advice of the Election Commission.
Constitution Review Commission (2002)
- Prohibition of defectors from holding public office for the duration of the remaining term.
- The vote cast by a defector to remove a government should be considered invalid.