The Anti-Defection Law in India is a set of provisions that aim to prevent elected representatives from changing their allegiance from one political party to another, often referred to as “floor-crossing” or “party-hopping.” The law was introduced to curb the practice of defection, which can lead to instability in governments and compromise the democratic principles of representation. The Anti-Defection Law is primarily enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which was added by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985.
Salient Features:
Prohibition of Defection:
The law prohibits elected members of Parliament (both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and state legislatures (both Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council) from defecting to another political party.
Disqualification Criteria:
A member is deemed to have defected if they voluntarily give up their membership of a political party or vote contrary to the directions issued by the party’s whip, despite the party’s opposition or abstain from voting against the party’s direction on a crucial matter.
Exceptions:
The law provides for certain exceptions to disqualification, such as if a member, after being elected as an independent candidate, joins a political party within six months.
Merger Provision:
The law also includes a provision for the merger of political parties. If two-thirds of the members of a party decide to merge with another party, they will not face disqualification.
Role of the Speaker/Chairman:
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and the Speakers/Chairmen of state legislatures are responsible for making decisions on disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law. They make decisions based on petitions submitted by the concerned political parties.
Time Limit for Decision:
The Speaker/Chairman is required to decide on disqualification matters within a reasonable time. However, the actual interpretation of “reasonable time” has been a subject of debate and judicial scrutiny.
Judicial Review:
Decisions of the Speaker/Chairman under the Anti-Defection Law are subject to judicial review. Courts can intervene if the decisions are found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of principles of natural justice.
Challenges and Criticisms:
Role of the Speaker:
The discretionary power given to the Speaker/Chairman has been a source of criticism, as it introduces a potential conflict of interest, especially when the Speaker is a member of a political party.
Impact on Political Dissent:
Critics argue that the Anti-Defection Law limits the freedom of elected representatives to express dissent within their party and stifles healthy intra-party discussions.
Floor-crossing by Groups:
The provision allowing the merger of two-thirds of a party’s members has been criticized for providing an avenue for defection by groups while ostensibly merging with another party.
Amendments:
91st Amendment (2003):
The 91st Amendment Act, 2003, introduced changes to the Anti-Defection Law, specifying that a member elected as a presiding officer shall not be disqualified from the House or Council on the ground of defection.
Prevention of Disqualification (Amendment) Act (2003):
The Prevention of Disqualification (Amendment) Act, 2003, introduced a mechanism for an elected member to give notice to the presiding officer before joining another party or merging with another party.
Conclusion:
The Anti-Defection Law in India is a significant legal framework designed to address the issue of defection and ensure stability in the political system. While it has been effective in curbing blatant floor-crossing, concerns about its implementation, potential misuse, and the role of the presiding officers continue to be subjects of debate and discussion.
