Anti Defection Law

India’s Anti-Defection Law stands as a cornerstone in maintaining the integrity and stability of its democratic system. Enacted to curb political opportunism and uphold the sanctity of elected mandates, this law plays a pivotal role in ensuring that elected representatives adhere to party discipline and ideological commitments. Delving into the intricacies of this legislation is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of Indian politics and the mechanisms in place to safeguard democratic principles. This blog seeks to provide a comprehensive exploration of India’s Anti-Defection Law, unraveling its historical context, key provisions, implementation challenges, and its impact on the country’s political landscape.

Defection happens when a politician changes their loyalty, like leaving their party to join another or becoming independent. The Anti-Defection Law in India was made in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment Act, part of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. These laws aim to stop or discourage defection by punishing politicians who switch parties or break party rules. They make sure politicians stay accountable to the voters who elected them and keep political parties stable. In some places, these laws let parties kick out members who defect, while in others, defectors might lose their right to hold public office or face other punishments.

Provision of Anti Defection Law

1. Disqualification: Members of a House can be disqualified if they voluntarily leave their political party or vote against their party’s instructions without permission, and the party doesn’t excuse this within 15 days.
2. Independent Members: Independent members lose their seat if they join a political party after being elected.
3. Nominated Members: Nominated members lose their seat if they join a political party six months after taking office.
4. Exceptions: There are two exceptions to disqualification: If a party merges with another party and if a member leaves their party after being elected as the presiding officer of the House.
5. Deciding Authority: The Speaker or Chairman of the House decides on defection cases, and their decision is final.
6. Rule-Making Power: The presiding officer can make rules to enforce the anti-defection law, and a complaint from a member is needed to take action.
7. Role of Whip: The whip ensures party members vote as directed. Members who defy the whip may face punishment under the anti-defection law.

Need to Anti Defection Law

An anti-defection law is considered essential in India to address several pressing issues:

1. Preventing Frequent Party Switching: The law aims to deter elected representatives from frequently changing political parties or factions, a phenomenon known as “Aaya Ram – Gaya Ram” politics, which can destabilize governance and diminish accountability. This term originated from a Haryana MLA, Gaya Lal, who switched parties multiple times within a short period in 1967.
2. Curbing Influence of Money and Power: There is a perceived need to combat the corrupting influence of money and power in politics. By holding politicians accountable to the voters who elected them, the law aims to diminish the undue influence of financial resources on political decisions.
3. Promoting Party Cohesion: The law seeks to foster stability and unity within political parties, preventing fragmentation of the party system. By discouraging defections, it aims to maintain coherence and discipline among party members.
4. Enhancing Political Stability: Implementing an anti-defection law is viewed as a means to strengthen democracy by promoting stability in governance. This ensures that legislative agendas of the government remain intact and are not disrupted by parliamentarians defecting to other parties.
5. Encouraging Responsibility and Loyalty: The law is intended to instill a sense of responsibility and loyalty among members of parliament towards the political parties they were aligned with at the time of their election. This helps maintain the integrity of the electoral process and reinforces party accountability.

Negative side of Anti Defection Law

1. Restriction of Dissent: Critics argue that the law restricts legislators’ freedom to act according to their conscience or represent their constituents’ interests, as they may fear disqualification for defying party directives.
2. Intra-Party Democracy: By penalizing defection, the law incentivizes parties to exert control over their members, potentially stifling internal dissent and discouraging legislators from voicing unpopular opinions within their party.
3. Party Fragmentation: To avoid disqualification, politicians may form new parties or join smaller ones, leading to a splintering of the party system. This fragmentation could hinder the formation of stable governments and effective policy implementation.
4. Undermining Democracy: There are concerns that the law is exploited for political advantage, with parties using the threat of defection to coerce members into supporting specific policies or candidates. This manipulation of the law may undermine the credibility of the political process and diminish public trust in democracy.
5. Role of the Speaker: The law’s ambiguity and lack of transparency have raised questions about the Speaker’s or Chairman’s authority in deciding defection cases. Their decisions are final and cannot be challenged in court, leading to concerns about fairness and impartiality in the process.

Recommendations and Reforms

The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) has proposed several recommendations regarding the issue of disqualification of members due to defection:

1. Role of President/Governor: The decision on disqualification of members based on defection should be made by the President/Governor upon the advice of the Election Commission, ensuring impartiality and fairness in the process.
2. Raising Threshold: To reduce the frequency of defections, the threshold for disqualification should be increased from one-third to two-thirds or three-fourths, making it more challenging for political parties to split.
3. Allowing Defections in Certain Circumstances: Defections could be permitted in specific situations, such as party mergers or when a member faces expulsion from their party.
4. Role of the Speaker: Some suggest removing the Speaker’s role in deciding defection cases and replacing it with an independent authority like the Election Commission to ensure unbiased judgment.
5. Allowing Independents to Join Parties: Independent members should be allowed to join political parties without facing disqualification.
6. Grace Period: Members who have defected may be given a grace period to demonstrate their loyalty to their new party before facing disqualification.
7. Time Frame: The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for timely resolution of defection cases, suggesting that the Speaker should decide on such petitions within three months to expedite the process.

Also read about Representation of People Act.