Anti-defection law

What is the issue?

Why was the anti-defection law instituted?

The anti-defection law is contained in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. It was enacted by Parliament and came into effect in 1985.
Purpose - To curb political defection by the legislators.
As in the Indian political scene for a long time, the legislators used to change parties frequently, the governments to fall due to the chaos.
They often brought about political instability. This caused serious concerns to the right-thinking political leaders of the country and at last, the ADL was enacted.

What are the efforts made before the ADL?

Several bills were brought in by the government at different times. But nothing could be passed.
The most important reason why the bills couldn’t be passed was that there was no consensus on the basic provisions of the anti-defection law.
The legislators feared that law too stringent on defection would likely curb their freedom of speech (a constitutional right) in legislatures.
A lot of time was taken before a consensus could be reached on this issue.
Finally, in 1985, the government brought a bill to curb defection by amending the Constitution to add 10th Schedule to it.

What are the grounds of disqualification under ADL?

If the member voluntarily gives up the membership of the party, he shall be disqualified. Voluntarily giving up the membership is not the same as resigning from a party. Even without resigning, a legislator can be disqualified if by his conduct the Speaker/Chairman of the concerned House draws a reasonable inference that the member has voluntarily given up the membership of his party.
If a legislator votes in the House against the direction of his party and his action is not condoned by his party, he can be disqualified.

What is an exception in ADL?

If there is a merger between two political parties and 2/3^rd of the members of a legislature party agree to the merger, they will not be disqualified.

When and why the law was amended?

The above-mentioned exception resulted in large scale defections and the lawmakers were convinced that the provision of a split in the party was being misused.
Therefore, the law was amended in 2003 and this provision was deleted.
Now, the only provision which can be invoked for protection from disqualification is the provision relating to the merger.

Is the law open to interpretation?

The ground for disqualifying a legislator for defecting from a party is his voluntarily giving up the membership of his party, which is susceptible to interpretation.
As has been explained earlier, voluntarily giving up the membership is not the same as resigning from a party.
The Supreme Court has said that the presiding officer, who acts as a tribunal, has to draw a reasonable inference from the conduct of the legislator.
So, there won’t be much problem in how can one decide that a member of a legislature has voluntarily given up the membership of his party.

How far has the law succeeded in achieving its goal?

The law has been able to curb the evil of defection to a great extent.
But lately, an alarming trend of legislators defecting in groups to another party in search of greener pastures is visible.
This only shows that the law needs a relook in order to plug the loopholes.
But it must be said that this law has served the interest of the society.
Political instability caused by a frequent and unholy change of allegiance by the legislators of our country has been contained to a very great extent.

Source: The Indian Express