Role of Anti-Defection Law in Protecting Democratic Integrity

Syllabus :GS2/Governance 

In News

• Recently, Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister highlighted the anti-defection law’s key role in protecting democracy during a 2024 political crisis.

Anti-defection Law

• The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the anti-defection law introduced in India in 1985 through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment.
• It was aimed at curbing rampant party-switching by legislators that often destabilised elected governments and undermined democratic mandates.
• The infamous “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” phenomenon epitomised the unethical political culture, where legislators frequently switched allegiances for personal gain undermining voter trust and destabilising governments.

Key Provisions

• It provides for the Presiding Officer of the legislature to disqualify any defector on a petition by another member. 
• It contemplates two kinds of defection: (a) by a member voluntarily giving up membership of the party on whose symbol he got elected (b) by a member violating a direction (whip) issued by his party to vote in a particular way or to abstain from voting.

Exceptions

• Originally, the Tenth Schedule allowed two exceptions to disqualification: a split by one-third of a legislature party and a merger approved by two-thirds of the members.
  • Change by the 91st Amendment (2003): To strengthen the anti-defection law and prevent its misuse, the provision allowing for “splits” (the one-third exception) was removed.

Role of Anti-Defection Law in Protecting Democracy

• Upholding Electoral Mandate: The law prevents legislators from betraying the party under which they were elected, thus honouring the choice of voters.
  • Example: Prevents a post-election “deal culture” where MLAs shift loyalties for ministerial perks.
• Ensuring Government Stability: By discouraging sudden party-switching, especially during no-confidence motions or budget votes, the law promotes continuity in governance.
• Promoting Party Discipline: The law enforces discipline through the party whip mechanism, essential for coordinated functioning in a parliamentary democracy.
• Curbing Corruption and Opportunism: By deterring political defection for personal gains, the law attempts to reduce unethical practices like bribery and horse-trading.

Criticisms 

• Speaker’s Discretion and Delays: No time-bound requirement to decide on disqualification.
  • Political bias often clouds impartial decision-making.
  • The Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Manipur Speaker (2020) held that Speakers must decide within a reasonable period of 3 months, but it’s not enforceable.
• Opaque Use of Party Whips: Internal party mechanisms of issuing whips lack transparency.
  • Ambiguity about whether legislators are properly informed of the whip.
• Judicial Limitations: Courts are reluctant to intervene promptly due to the “autonomy of the legislature”.
  • This leads to status quoism, allowing defectors to enjoy power till the term ends.
• Fails to Discourage Wholesale Defections: Law still enables engineered mergers under the garb of “2/3rd” support.
  • Recent examples: Goa (2019), Arunachal Pradesh (2016) show how the law can be outmaneuvered by larger parties.

Conclusion and Way Ahead

• Time-bound Decisions: Amend the Tenth Schedule to require decisions is a defined time frame, failing which disqualification is automatic.
• Transparent Whip Communication: Legal mandate for publication of whips (e.g., newspapers, online).
• Independent Tribunal: Instead of the Speaker, a neutral body (perhaps under ECI) should handle disqualifications, as recommended by:
  • Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990)
  • Law Commission Report 170 (1999)
  • National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002)

Source: TH