Introduction

This article explains India’s anti-defection law, introduced in 1985 and talks about its importance and loopholes to strengthen democracy in India. The anti-defection law in India is a rule designed to stop elected politicians from switching political parties too frequently. The law disqualifies members who leave their party or vote against it on key issues, though loopholes and delays in rulings have limited its effectiveness.

The law aims to maintain the integrity of the democratic process and ensure that elected representatives stay loyal to their political party. However, the law has faced various challenges and criticisms over time, leading to calls for further reforms. Amendments in 2003 helped, but issues like slow decisions and unclear party instructions persist. Experts suggest setting a decision timeline and making party directives more transparent to strengthen the law and support democratic stability in India.

To read in detail the anti-defection law visit, https://loksabhadocs.nic.in/Refinput/New_Reference_Notes/English/15072022_111659_1021205175.pdf

Background: Why the Law Was Needed

India experienced many instances of “defection,” or party-switching, by politicians after gaining independence in 1947. This led to unstable governments as legislators frequently switched from one political party to another, often for personal gain.

This chaotic period was marked by a famous incident in the 1960s in Haryana, where a politician named Gaya Lal switched parties several times within a single day. This gave rise to the term “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram,” which highlighted how easily politicians were moving from one party to another. These defections led to frequent government collapses, which ultimately harmed the stability of democracy in India.

Introduction of the Anti-Defection Law

To address this issue, the Indian Parliament passed the anti-defection law in 1985. This was done through the 52nd Amendment, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution. The law aimed to prevent political instability by establishing clear rules for when a politician can be disqualified (lose their seat) if they switch parties.

The law specifies two main reasons for disqualification:

1. Voluntarily Leaving the Party: If an elected representative voluntarily leaves their political party, they can lose their position.
2. Voting Against Party Instructions on Important Matters: If a member goes against the party’s instructions (called a “whip”) on important votes—such as a vote of confidence in the government or budget approval—they could also face disqualification.

By introducing these rules, the anti-defection law hoped to make it harder for individual politicians to leave their parties, reducing the chance of frequent government collapses.

Loopholes in the Original Law

Although the anti-defection law initially helped curb defection, it contained loopholes that allowed some politicians to escape punishment. One major flaw was that if one-third of the members of a party’s legislative group decided to defect, they could legally split from the party without facing disqualification. This “one-third rule” led to cases where large groups within parties defected, causing instability despite the anti-defection law.

The 91st Amendment in 2003: Closing Loopholes

To address these loopholes, the Indian Parliament introduced the 91st Amendment to the Constitution in 2003. This amendment changed the law to prevent small-scale defections: It raised the threshold needed for a party split. Now, at least two-thirds of a party’s members must agree if they want to switch parties together without being disqualified. This change made it much harder for smaller groups to leave their parties and cause instability.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Law

1. Delays in Decision-Making: The Speaker or Chairperson of the legislative body is responsible for deciding if a defection has occurred, but there is no set timeline for making this decision. This has led to cases where the Speaker takes months, or even years, to rule, allowing defecting politicians to keep their seats and influence important decisions. This delay undermines the purpose of the law, as it allows defectors to continue holding office even when they may no longer have the support of their original party.
2. Lack of Transparency with Party Whips: Party whips are formal instructions given by a party to its members to follow a particular voting position on key issues. However, these whips are often communicated internally, leading to disputes over whether members received the instructions. Without a clear record, it is sometimes difficult to prove whether a member’s defection was intentional or due to a lack of proper communication.
3. Limited Judicial Oversight: While courts can review the Speaker’s decision, judges often hesitate to interfere in defection cases, as these are considered internal matters of the legislature. This has limited the ability of the judiciary to address delays or potential abuses of power in defection cases.

Proposed Reforms to Strengthen the Law

To address these issues, experts have proposed two main reforms to the anti-defection law:

1. Setting a Fixed Timeline for Defection Decisions: It is suggested that the Speaker or Chairperson should be required to decide on defection cases within four weeks. If they fail to decide within this period, the defecting member should automatically lose their seat. This change would help prevent delays and ensure that defection cases are resolved quickly.
2. Making Party Whips Public: Another proposed reform is to increase transparency by making party whips available to the public. For example, whips could be published in newspapers or sent electronically to make sure all members are aware of the party’s instructions. This would prevent confusion over whether members knew about their party’s stance and make it easier to verify if a defection has occurred.

Debate Over Replacing the Speaker’s Role in Defection Cases

In a 2020 case (Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly), the Supreme Court of India suggested that the Speaker’s role in anti-defection cases could be given to an independent tribunal or an organization like the Election Commission of India. This recommendation was made to avoid potential biases, as the Speaker is usually a member of the ruling party and might have conflicts of interest. However, some believe that the Speaker’s role is essential in upholding parliamentary integrity and that instead of removing this role, efforts should be made to improve the Speaker’s accountability and transparency.

Suggested Reforms from Expert Committees

Several expert committees and reports have recommended changes to strengthen the anti-defection law. These include:

• The Dinesh Goswami Committee Report (1990)
• The Hashim Abdul Halim Committee Report (1994, 2003)
• The 170th Report of the Law Commission of India (1999)
• The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution Report (2002)
• The 255th Report of the Law Commission of India (2015)

These reports have called for clearer rules, timelines, and additional safeguards to make the anti-defection law more effective.

Importance of Political Will

The anti-defection law has been successful in reducing political instability caused by frequent defections, but its implementation has shown some weaknesses. Strengthening this law through amendments to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is considered essential for initiatives like “One Nation, One Election,” which seeks to align national and state elections in India. With stronger anti-defection rules, the law can continue to protect the stability and integrity of India’s democracy by ensuring that politicians respect their party’s principles and the will of the voters.

Key political figures, including leaders from both the ruling party and the opposition, are encouraged to prioritize these amendments to strengthen Indian democracy. By doing so, the anti-defection law would adapt to India’s evolving political landscape, becoming more effective, fair, and reflective of the values of loyalty, transparency, and democratic integrity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while India’s anti-defection law has helped reduce political instability, its effectiveness is hindered by delays and ambiguities. Strengthening the law with clear timelines and transparent party instructions would make it a more powerful tool for ensuring loyalty among elected representatives, supporting stable governance, and protecting India’s democratic integrity.

.

.join our telegram channel for regular updates of The Hindu Epaper Editorial Explanation-https://t.me/Thehindueditorialexplanation

The Hindu Epaper Editorial Explanation given by Hello Student is only a supplementary reading to the original article to make things easier for the students.

In conclusion, preparing for exams in India can be a daunting task, but with the right strategies and resources, success is within reach. Remember, consistent study habits, effective time management, and a positive mindset are key to overcoming any academic challenge. Utilize the tips and techniques shared in this post to enhance your preparation and boost your confidence. Stay focused, stay motivated, and don’t forget to take care of your well-being. With dedication and perseverance, you can achieve your academic goals and pave the way for a bright future. Good luck!

The Editorial Page of The Hindu is an essential reading for all the students aspiring for UPSC, SSC, PCS, Judiciary etc or any other competitive government exams.

This may also be useful for exams like CUET UG and CUET PG, GATE, GMAT, GRE AND CAT

To read this article in Hindi –https://bhaarat.hellostudent.co.in/

Celebration and Vigil, Kala Azar. The Hindu Editorial Explanation 24 October 2024.