Defections Affect Moral Sanctity of Democracy

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity

Context

• Frequent post-election defections and party realignments in Indian politics have reignited concerns about the erosion of democratic ethics, voter trust, and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.

What is Political Defection?

• Political defection refers to the change of party affiliation by an elected representative after being elected on the ticket of another political party.
• In the late 1960s and 70s, defections in Parliament and State Legislatures became so frequent that the epithet “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” was coined to describe the same. 

Why Are Defections a Threat to Democracy?

• Violation of Electoral Mandate: Voters choose candidates based on the party’s ideology, manifesto, and leadership. However switching parties after the election is betraying the mandate given by the electorate.
• Promotion of Opportunistic Politics: Frequent defections make political survival more important than ideology and public service, which encourages transactional rather than principled politics.
• Weakening of Democratic Competition: Parliamentary democracy needs both a strong government and an effective Opposition. However, large-scale defections are weakening the Opposition’s ability to scrutinize the executive and present a credible alternative.

Anti-Defection Law

• The anti-defection law was introduced through the Fifty-second Constitutional Amendment in 1985 by incorporating the Tenth Schedule into the Constitution.
  • Its principal objective was the disqualification of the members of Parliament and the state legislatures on the ground of defection from one political party to another. 
  • An independent member of a House becomes disqualified to remain a member of the House if he joins any political party after such election. 
  • A nominated member of a House becomes disqualified for being a member of the House if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat in the House. 
• The Ninety-first Amendment of 2003 further tightened the law by abolishing the exemption from disqualification for a bloc comprising at least one-third of the members of a legislature party.
  • Thereafter, only a merger supported by at least two-thirds of the members of a legislature party remained eligible for this exemption.

What are the Concerns?

• Under the Tenth Schedule, the authority to decide disqualification petitions rests with the presiding officers of the respective Houses — the Speaker in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and the Chairmen in the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Councils.
  • While the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is mandated to resign from his parent party, this is not obligatory for the Speakers. 
• This arrangement inevitably gives rise to questions about institutional impartiality. Presiding officers have delayed decisions on disqualification petitions for months and years, and at times, for the entire tenure of the House.

Supreme Court Judgements

• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and held that the Speaker’s decision on disqualification is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
• Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020): Supreme Court of India ruled that Speakers of national and state legislatures decide defection cases under the Tenth Schedule within a reasonable time frame, strictly recommending an outer limit of three months

Way Ahead

• Institutional Reforms: Establish a time-bound mechanism for deciding disqualification petitions and consider transferring adjudication to an independent tribunal.
• Political Reforms: Strengthen internal party democracy and make candidate selection more transparent and ideology-based.
• Electoral Reforms: Strengthen the role of the Election Commission in monitoring post-election realignments.

Source: TH