Anti-Defection Law in India

March 19, 2024

9 Minutes

Introduction to Anti-Defection Law for UPSC

The Anti-Defection Law, introduced in India in 1985, aims to maintain political stability by preventing elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and state legislatures (MLAs) from switching parties. This law has become increasingly significant due to the rising incidents of political defections in India, where MPs and MLAs change their party allegiance, affecting the democratic fabric of the country. This article will explain the law, the debates surrounding it, and its impact on Indian politics.

Background of the Anti-Defection Law

The concept of anti-defection was institutionalized in India through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, adding the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution. This was a response to growing concerns over political stability being compromised by elected representatives switching parties for personal gain.

Key Provisions

• Definition of Defection: Leaving one's party for another or disobeying the party's directives on a vote in the legislature.
• Grounds for Disqualification: An MP or MLA can be disqualified if they defect from their party. However, a merger with or into another party is not considered defection if at least two-thirds of the members agree to the merger.
• Authority of the Decision: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of the Legislative Assembly has the authority to decide on defection cases.

The Anti-Defection Law was envisioned to deter politicians from changing parties after being elected, thus ensuring that electoral mandates are respected, and political stability is maintained.

The Need for the Anti-Defection Law

Political Instability and Public Trust

Before the enactment of the Anti-Defection Law, Indian politics witnessed numerous instances of elected representatives switching parties for personal or political gain. This practice, often referred to as "horse trading", led to political instability, frequent fall of governments, and a general erosion of public trust in the political system. The law was thus seen as a necessary measure to curb these tendencies and ensure that elected representatives remained faithful to the mandates given by their electorate.

Ensuring Accountability and Integrity

The primary objective behind the introduction of the Anti-Defection Law was to enhance the accountability and integrity of elected representatives. By penalizing defections, the law aimed to ensure that politicians could not abandon their commitments and electoral promises for personal advancement or opportunistic reasons. This was intended to foster a culture of loyalty, not just to the party but to the electorate's expectations and the democratic ethos of the nation.

Ongoing Debate and Criticisms

Suppression of Freedom and Creativity

Stifling of Individual Expression: Critics argue that the Anti-Defection Law, in its current form, excessively restricts legislators' freedom to express dissenting opinions within their party. This limitation is seen as detrimental to the democratic principle of free speech and the constructive debate of ideas within the political arena.

Challenges in Enforcement

Impartiality of the Decision-Maker: The role of the Speaker or the presiding officer in deciding defection cases has come under scrutiny. There have been instances where decisions appeared to be influenced by political biases, undermining the law's effectiveness and impartiality.

Misuse for Political Gains

Instrument of Political Coercion: There are concerns that the law has been misused as a tool to coerce party members into submission or to prevent them from expressing legitimate dissent. This has led to debates about the need for reforms to ensure that the law serves its intended purpose without compromising democratic freedoms.

Also check out: Section 498A IPC

Case Study: Karnataka Political Crisis of 2019

Background

The Karnataka political crisis of 2019 provides a vivid illustration of the Anti-Defection Law's role and its implications in Indian politics. In July 2019, the state of Karnataka witnessed a series of resignations by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), leading to a tumultuous political scenario. This crisis was marked by the resignation of 17 MLAs from the ruling coalition government, comprising the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S)), which eventually led to the government's collapse and paved the way for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form the government.

The Defections

The resigning MLAs, comprising members from both INC and JD(S), expressed their discontent with the coalition government and sought to resign from their legislative posts. Their resignations were seen as a move to defect to the BJP, a charge they initially denied. The Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, invoking the Anti-Defection Law, was placed in a position to decide the fate of these MLAs, considering whether their resignations were genuine or a strategy to circumvent the provisions of the law and effectuate a change in the state government.

Speaker's Decision and Legal Challenges

When the political drama unfolded in Karnataka in 2019, the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly made a crucial decision. He chose to disqualify 17 members of the assembly because they left their parties, which seemed like they were trying to switch sides for personal gain. According to the rules, this meant these members could not run for election again in the same term of the assembly if there were any upcoming elections. However, these members didn't agree with the decision and took their case to the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court of India, leading to a significant legal discussion about the Anti-Defection Law and the power of the Speaker.

Supreme Court's Judgement

In November 2019, the Supreme Court looked into the matter and made a crucial decision. While it agreed that the Speaker was right to disqualify the 17 assembly members based on the rules against switching parties, it also said something unexpected. The Court decided that just because these members were disqualified didn't mean they could never run for election again during the same assembly term. So, the Court said these disqualified members were allowed to try and get elected again in any upcoming by-elections.

This decision was a big deal because it meant that the disqualified members had a chance to come back into the political scene. Many of them took this opportunity, joined a different major party, the BJP, and ran in the next set of elections.

Impact on Political Landscape

The crisis and subsequent developments highlighted several aspects of the Anti-Defection Law:

• Effectiveness and Challenges: The case demonstrated both the strengths and limitations of the Anti-Defection Law in preventing political defections and ensuring party loyalty.
• Governance and Stability: The political uncertainty and governance paralysis during the crisis period underscored the potential destabilizing effects of mass defections on state governance and administration.
• Legal and Ethical Questions: The episode raised important questions about the ethical considerations of political defections and the role of legal frameworks in addressing these challenges.

The Karnataka political crisis of 2019 illustrated the complex interplay between political ambitions, legal frameworks, and the quest for stability in democratic systems.

Also read: The Ayodhya Ram Mandir: History | Architecture | Features

Proposed Reforms and Future Directions

91st Amendment

Key Changes Introduced: The 91st Amendment Act of 2003 made several pivotal changes to the Anti-Defection Law to address some of its earlier shortcomings and to further strengthen the framework against political defection. These changes include:

• Limiting the size of the Council of Ministers to not more than 15% of the total number of members in the Lok Sabha or the Legislative Assembly, with a minimum of 12 members in case of smaller states.
• Excluding those who have been disqualified under the Anti-Defection Law from being appointed as ministers or holding political office.
• Providing that a member disqualified under the Anti-Defection Law is also disqualified from being reappointed as a minister or holding any remunerative political post for the duration of the term of the House or until they are re-elected to the Legislature.

These modifications were aimed at curbing the practice of offering ministerial positions as incentives for defection and ensuring that the law's provisions are more effectively enforced.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability

• Impact of the 91st Amendment: By addressing key areas of concern within the Anti-Defection Law, the 91st Amendment sought to enhance the law's effectiveness in maintaining political integrity and discipline within parties. It highlights the ongoing efforts to reform political practices and ensure that elected representatives adhere to the principles of accountability and commitment to their electorate.
• Future of Political Integrity: The amendments introduced by the 91st Act represent a significant step towards refining the legal framework against political defection. However, the debate on further reforms continues, with suggestions focusing on improving transparency in the decision-making process and ensuring that the law does not infringe on the democratic rights of individual legislators while still safeguarding the ethos of political commitment and stability.

Conclusion

The Anti-Defection Law stands as a crucial mechanism to prevent political instability and ensure the integrity of India's democratic processes. While it has played a significant role in curbing indiscriminate party hopping, ongoing debates and criticisms highlight the need for a balanced approach to its implementation and reform. For UPSC aspirants, understanding the intricacies of this law, its impact on political dynamics, and the debates surrounding it is essential for grasping the broader nuances of Indian polity and governance. Future reforms should aim to strengthen the law, making it a more effective tool for preserving democratic values while allowing for healthy dissent and debate within the political spectrum.

Also read: Election Commission of India 

Practice Questions

Question 1: Consider the following statements regarding the Anti-Defection Law in India:

1. The law is detailed in the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

2. A member disqualified under the Anti-Defection Law is barred from holding any ministerial position in the government for the duration of the current term of the legislature. 3. The decision on disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law is subject to judicial review only if it involves calculation of numerical strength of any political party.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 only

B) 1 and 2 only

C) 2 and 3 only

D) 1, 2, and 3

Question 2: Consider the following statements about the powers of the Speaker under the Anti-Defection Law:

1. The Speaker's decision on disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law is final and not subject to judicial review.

2. The Speaker has the authority to disqualify a member even before the member formally joins another party.

3. The law allows the Speaker to exempt defections if they are deemed to be a result of a genuine split in the original political party.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 and 3 only

B) 2 only

C) 2 and 3 only

D) None of the above

Question 3: Regarding the 91st Amendment to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

1. It limits the total number of ministers in the Central and State Governments to 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha and the respective State Legislative Assembly.

2. It introduced a provision that the total number of ministers including the Prime Minister at the centre and the Chief Minister at the states cannot be less than 15% of the total number of members in the Lok Sabha and the respective State Legislative Assemblies.

3. It amended the Anti-Defection Law to exempt splits but retained the provision for mergers.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 only

B) 1 and 2 only

C) 1 and 3 only

D) All of the above

Question 4: Consider the following statements in the context of defections and the Anti-Defection Law:

1. The law applies to both Parliament and State Legislatures.

2. The decision of the Chairman/Speaker in disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule is not subject to review by any court.

3. A member elected as an independent cannot join a political party after the election.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 and 3 only

B) 2 only

C) 1, 2, and 3

D) 1 and 2 only