Anti-Defection Law
Anti-Defection Law
The Anti-Defection Law in India is a crucial piece of legislation aimed at curbing political defections and ensuring stability within the legislative bodies.
Anti-Defection Law
Introduction
- Enactment: The Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution.
- Purpose: To combat political defections by legislators, which were seen as a means of subverting the mandate of the people, leading to instability in the government.
Key Provisions of the Tenth Schedule
- Disqualification on Grounds of Defection:
- Voluntarily Giving Up Membership: A member of a House belonging to a political party shall be disqualified from being a member of the House if they voluntarily give up their membership of such political party.
- Voting or Abstaining Contrary to Party Whip: If a member votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by their political party without obtaining prior permission and such action is not condoned by the party within 15 days.
- Independent Members:
- An elected member of the House who has been elected otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party shall be disqualified if they join any political party after such election.
- Nominated Members:
- A nominated member of the House shall be disqualified if they join any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which they take their seat in the House.
Exceptions to Disqualification
- Merger: If a member goes along with a merger of their original political party with another party and at least two-thirds of the members of the party concerned agree to the merger, they are not disqualified.
Decision on Disqualification
- Presiding Officer’s Role: The decision on disqualification on grounds of defection is referred to the Chairman or the Speaker of such House, and their decision is final. The law provides that such proceedings are not subject to judicial review, though recent Supreme Court judgments have allowed judicial intervention on grounds of malafide, perversity, and violation of natural justice.
Judicial Interpretation
- Kihoto Hollohan Case (1992): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Anti-Defection Law but struck down the provision that the decision of the Presiding Officer is final and not subject to judicial review.
Criticisms and Challenges
- Role of Speaker: The Speaker’s impartiality is often questioned since they are usually from the ruling party.
- Stifling Dissent: The law is criticized for curbing legitimate dissent and debate within the party.
- Judicial Review: The lack of clear guidelines for judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions leads to ambiguity.
- Ineffectiveness: Instances of mass defections and the use of the merger clause have been criticized as loopholes that dilute the effectiveness of the law.
Recent Developments
- 2019 Amendments Proposals: There have been proposals for amendments to make the law more effective, such as setting up an independent tribunal to decide on defection cases.
Conclusion
The Anti-Defection Law has played a significant role in maintaining the stability of governments and ensuring the integrity of elected representatives. However, there is a need for continuous evaluation and reform to address its shortcomings and ensure that it serves its intended purpose effectively.
Solve more FREE Quiz Series on Recent News
Click:👉 July 2024 Current Affairs-Test V:
Click:👉 July 2024 Current Affairs-Test V: