Sambhav-2025

Approach Briefly introduce the Anti-Defection Law (10th Schedule) and its role in parliamentary democracy. Explain how the law strengthens parliamentary democracy by ensuring stability, discipline, and accountability. Analyze its impact on legislative functioning, including positive aspects and limitations. Conclude with a balanced perspective.

Introduction

The Anti-Defection Law, enacted through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, aims to curb political defections and maintain the stability of governments. It seeks to uphold party discipline, prevent horse-trading, and strengthen parliamentary democracy. However, its rigid provisions often undermine internal democracy and restrict legislative independence.

Body

How the Anti-Defection Law Strengthens Parliamentary Democracy

• Prevents Political Instability: Discourages unethical defections, ensuring that governments complete their tenure (e.g., Karnataka 2019 crisis).
• Reduces Corrupt Practices: Restricts horse-trading and bribery, which were rampant before 1985, preventing manipulation of floor tests.
• Ensures Party Discipline: Legislators remain committed to their party’s ideological stance, reducing fragmentation and frequent re-elections.
• Strengthens Collective Responsibility: Ensures a stable executive, where elected representatives remain accountable to their party and voters.
• Empowers the Speaker as an Adjudicator: The Speaker/Chairman decides on disqualification, enabling quick resolution of defection cases.

Critical Analysis: Impact on Legislative Functioning

• Restricts Individual Freedom of Legislators: Prevents MPs/MLAs from expressing independent views, reducing deliberative democracy.
• Encourages Partisan Decision-Making: The Speaker’s discretionary power has often been misused for political gains.
• Fails to Prevent Mass Defections: The provision allowing defection if two-thirds of members switch parties has led to engineered defections (e.g., Maharashtra 2022 crisis).
• Weakens Legislative Oversight: MPs and MLAs are forced to vote along party lines, diminishing debate, dissent, and constructive opposition.
• Delayed Disqualification Process: Cases often remain unresolved for months, allowing defectors to continue in office.
• Judicial Interventions Indicate Loopholes: The Kihoto Hollohan (1992) ruling upheld the Speaker's authority but called for an independent tribunal to ensure fair adjudication.

Conclusion

While the Anti-Defection Law has enhanced political stability, it also curtails legislative independence and internal democracy. To balance party discipline and legislative freedom, reforms like timely disqualification, an independent tribunal for adjudication, and allowing dissent on specific issues should be considered.