Anti defection law needs drastic changes

The ongoing political defections and realignments have revived concerns over the effectiveness of India’s anti-defection law.
Despite stricter provisions, defections continue through organised political bargaining and engineered mergers.

About the Anti-Defection Law

• The anti-defection law was introduced to curb political instability caused by frequent switching of parties.
• It is contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
• A legislator may be disqualified for:
  • Voluntarily giving up membership of the political party.
  • Voting or abstaining against the party whip without permission.
  • Joining a political party after being elected as an independent member.
  • A nominated member joining a party after the permitted period.
• The decision on disqualification is taken by the Speaker or Chairman of the House.

Related Constitutional Amendments

• 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985: Inserted the Tenth Schedule and introduced the anti-defection law.
• 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003: Removed the protection available to a split involving one-third of legislators.
• After the 2003 amendment, exemption is available only when at least two-thirds of the legislature party agrees to a merger.

Major Problems with the Present Law

• Presiding officers may lack impartiality because they usually belong to a political party.
• Disqualification decisions are often delayed for months or years.
• Legislators sometimes complete most of their tenure before a decision is delivered.
• The two-thirds merger exemption has encouraged large-scale engineered defections.
• The law has become an instrument for managing defections rather than preventing them.
• Excessive party control through the whip also restricts independent legislative debate and dissent.

What Needs to Change?

• The tenure of a legislator should automatically end when the member resigns from the party on whose ticket they were elected.
• The vacated seat should be filled through a fresh election.
• The former legislator should be free to contest again as:
  • An independent candidate; or
  • The nominee of another political party.
• This would allow voters, rather than the Speaker or party leadership, to decide whether the defection is acceptable.
• Disqualification cases should be decided within a fixed and short time limit.
• Adjudication may be entrusted to an independent authority, such as the Election Commission or a tribunal.
• The party whip should be restricted mainly to confidence motions, no-confidence motions, money Bills and other matters affecting government stability.

Significance of the Proposed Reform

• It would uphold the electoral mandate given to a political party.
• It would discourage legislators from retaining office after abandoning the party platform.
• It would permit genuine political dissent without permanently preventing re-election.
• It would reduce dependence on potentially partisan presiding officers.
• It would restore the final authority of voters in determining a legislator’s political legitimacy.