Mains Marathon

Approach

• Introduction: Provide a brief overview of the Anti-Defection Law and its purpose.
• Body: Discuss the reasons behind disqualifications and effectiveness of the law in curbing defections along with the way forward measures.
• Conclusion: Summarize the key points and conclude.

Introduction:

The Anti-Defection Law in India was enacted in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment Act of the Constitution to prevent the instability caused by frequent defections of legislators from one party to another. The law disqualifies members of Parliament and state assemblies if they voluntarily give up the membership of their party or disobey the party whip on a vote. 

Body:

Reasons behind defection by the legislators:

• Personal ambitions: Some legislators may defect to another party to seek a ministerial berth, a higher office, or a better position within the party hierarchy. They may also defect to avoid disciplinary action or expulsion from their original party.
• Ideological differences: Some legislators may defect to another party due to disagreements with the policies, programmes, or leadership of their original party. They may also defect to express their dissatisfaction with the functioning of the government or the opposition.
• Electoral incentives: Some legislators may defect to another party to improve their chances of winning the next election. They may defect to join a more popular or influential party, or to avoid anti-incumbency against their original party. They may also defect to secure more funds or resources for their constituencies.
• Coalition dynamics: Some legislators may defect to another party to influence the formation or survival of a coalition government. They may defect to support or oppose a particular coalition partner, or to bargain for a better deal for their original party. They may also defect to destabilise or topple a government that is not favourable to their interests.

Effectiveness of the law:

The law has helped to some extent in reducing defections, as it has created a legal disincentive for politicians to switch parties. It has also provided a mechanism for political parties to take action against defectors and maintain discipline within their ranks. However, there have been instances where legislators have found ways to bypass its provisions. Some of these are:

• The law allows a party to merge with another party if at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger, which may encourage defections in the name of merger. 
• The law gives the power to decide on disqualification to the Presiding Officer of the House, who may be biased or influenced by political considerations. 
• The law does not specify a time limit for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification petition, which may result in delay or uncertainty. 
  • However, recently The Supreme Court has held that a time limit of three months should be fixed for such cases.

Way forward

• Amend the law to enable legislators to vote according to conscience or constituents' interests on specific issues (e.g., no-confidence motions, money bills, public matters).
• Amend the law to transfer disqualification petition decisions from presiding officers to an independent authority (e.g., Election Commission or judicial tribunal).
• Prescribe a time limit for resolving disqualification petitions and prevent disqualified members from retaining office perks until a final verdict is delivered.
• Remove the exception for defections by a large group of legislators and impose disqualification from contesting elections for defectors within a designated period.
• Enforce the law rigorously and impartially, with severe consequences for any violations or attempts to circumvent it by appropriate authorities.

Conclusion

The Anti-Defection Law in India discourages legislators from switching parties by allowing parties to expel them. However, the law has drawbacks, such as suppressing dissent and giving too much power to the Speaker. The law also fails to tackle the reasons for defections.