Does the anti-defection law need a change?

The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, or the Anti-Defection Law, was enacted in 1985. What was the need of this law then?

PDT Teacher: Before the law came into force in 1985, the political class was anxiously trying to find a way to stop the regular defections in different parts of India. Defections lead to instability, which leads to the fall of governments and the formation of new governments with the help of defectors. The government prepared the bill after Rajiv Gandhi came to power with a huge majority. It was brought before the House and passed unanimously. Some thought that the measure would curtail freedom of expression and stifle the free exercise of opinion by members of the legislature elected by the people. But defection was universally accepted as an evil. That evil needed to be curbed; Hence, the law was brought. There is a famous joke, which is ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’. This means that Ram left one political party in the morning, joined another party at lunchtime, and is set to join another party after lunch. That’s why this law has been brought.

Ruchi Gupta: What the law tries to do is stabilize the party system by consolidating control of the party leadership rather than ideological cohesion or ownership. [by constituent legislators] Of the party By doing so, it is framing democracy not as a system of representation and accountability, but as a competition between factions that have consolidated power. Therefore, it is one political party against the other in an organized manner, as legislators are elected to represent the people and then elect the government. This has effectively ended the representative system of democracy in our country.

How do you think the law is progressing today?

PDT Teacher: If you look at the design of the anti-defection law, you will find that its main objective was to prevent defection. Its most important aspect was that it sought to stabilize the party system as political parties are the major stakeholders in our democracy; They contest elections. Legislators are members of political parties. The stability of the political system became an imperative. The kind of defection that used to happen before the passing of this law is not happening now. But recent incidents show that this law needs to be made more stringent.

The division of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, i.e. paragraph three, was first made a little stricter. It said, if there is a split in a particular party, and one-third of the MLAs go with the breakaway group, they will not be disqualified. So, partition was a defense against disqualification. But due to the experience gained by the political class, it was abolished. People were misusing that special provision and breaking parties.

But now, there is a very disturbing trend, which is to interpret para four (decision on questions as to disqualification on grounds of defection) in a particular way, because there is no official pronouncement of law from the Supreme Court on this.

Ruchi Gupta: In a democracy, the people are the major stakeholders; The parties are only institutional intermediaries. The stability of a party is needed, but it is not clear why stability should come on the back of exerting control over legislators which effectively nullifies their representative role in a democracy. Only a few countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe have this law. Otherwise, legislators have the right to vote for any measure of their choice. And it’s not even that the anti-defection law is working as intended: governments have fallen time and again and defectors have been unaffected. There are suggestions to fix loopholes such as automatic disqualification, or that the Speaker should address disqualification petitions in a time-bound manner, but the power politics are too broad to be captured by the processes. Law is essentially trying to use a legal remedy to address a political problem.

You talked about a troubling trend. In Karnataka, some MLAs left the Congress-JD(S) alliance and joined the BJP to form the government. In Maharashtra, the MVA government was toppled as several elected MLAs left the coalition and formed a new government. And after the elections in Goa, the Congress emerged as the single largest party, but many MLAs defected and the BJP came to power. Do you think monetary gains as well as political pressure take precedence over the anti-defection law?

PDT Teacher: That’s exactly it. Why do they defect when they are elected? They defect for the greed of office. Ideological defection does not happen in India. At least there is no empirical evidence about it. Paragraph four says two things. One is that a member goes to the Speaker and says that the party has merged with another party and I and my friends, two-thirds of the members of the Legislature Party, agree to the merger. In that case, the Speaker will not disqualify them. So, it’s a split hedge, which was before. This is a defense they can put up against the disqualification process. The political class has interpreted it differently. They say that if the legislature party merges with any other party and two-thirds of its members merge with any other party, they will be saved from disqualification. This has happened in some of these states.

Ruchi Gupta: Politics is always relevant and there is an apprehension that if the anti-defection law is scrapped, how the ruling party consolidates power will adversely affect the opposition parties. I think this is a misconception because scrapping the law would also give the ruling party legislators the right to dissent. Even if an MP feels that the law is going against their own constituents and their own interests, as they will have to face re-election, they cannot go against the whip. An example is the recent farm laws where members of the ruling party had no choice but to take the side of their party even when they disagreed with the bill. This has a greater impact on democratic functioning than the stability of the party alone.

Do you think the law in its current form is being misused? If yes, would you suggest any changes in it?

PDT Teacher: It is being misinterpreted as is being seen in Maharashtra as there is no official interpretation of the law. Once the Supreme Court lays down the law and says that the merger is to be between two parties and then two-thirds of the members agree to the merger, they are safe, and if not, they are not. , should be clarified. Currently in the 10th Schedule, there is no time limit prescribed for the Speaker to determine the issue and the very purpose of this anti-defection law has been defeated.

Ruchi Gupta: I feel the law needs to be scrapped as it has not been able to stop defection. Political representatives are smart enough to plug loopholes. Talking about the stability of the party, I think the scope of the law can be limited only to no-confidence motions. if there is freedom of speech [for legislators]There should also be freedom of action.