Anti-Defection Law

 What if your preferred leader left your preferred political party? What if they fool you with their ‘ideology’? What if they left their, your preferred ideology associated with them?

Defection refers to the tendency of politicians to shuffle from one party to another. In essence, defection is loyalty, abandonment of duty or principle. The defector is disloyal not only to the party on whose ticket he or she has been elected but also commits a breach of faith with the electorate whose votes were secured on the basis of his or her electoral affiliation and promises. There may sometimes be genuine reasons as occasions when considerations of conscience compel a change of convictions and an honourable exit from the political party on whose ticket the candidate was elected. Genuine floor crossings have occurred in all democracies, be it the UK, Australia, Canada or USA as also in the Central Legislative Assembly in India in the pre-independence period. 

Evidently, the lure of filthy lucre, the fatal fascination of power and position are the motivating factors for the defections. The scale defections in Indian politics has been huge with thousands of defections have taken place across all political periods and parties. 

Several politicians have been known to change their party’s affiliations more than once, and noteworthy as few as five times. 

There have been attempts to curb the malice of political defections in our national life. A Constitution Amendment Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16th May 1973, as a sequel to the report on defections by a high-level Committee under the Chairman Ship of the then Home Minister Sh. Y.B. Chavan. 

Defections continued and in face of severe criticism of the same, the constitution was amended and the Tenth Schedule enacted. It came into force on 1st march 1985. It provides that a Member of Parliament or State Legislature belonging to a political party shall be disqualified if he voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or votes against his party directive or abstains from voting. The Act further provided that if a legislator is so disqualified, he shall lose his seat in the Legislature. 

The provisions of the anti-defection law were not apply if- 

a. One-third members of the political party leave the party to form another party . 

b. Two-third members of a party to decide to merge with another political party 

The final authority to decide whether a person has incurred the disqualification on the grounds of defection or not rests with the Chairman or the Speaker of the House and his decision is final, according to the Act. 

The Constitutional Ninety-First Amendment Act, 2003 brought some changes, to earlier law. The amendment deletes paragraph allowing one-third of a Legislature party to split without attracting provisions of the existing anti-defection law. It debars a defector from holding any “remunerative political post” for the remaining tenure of the legislature unless re-elected. 

The Tenth Schedule was initially hailed as a panacea for the evils of defection. Unfortunately, the remedy has proven to be worse than the disease and in more ways than once it has encouraged horse trading and the accompanying corrupt practices. It seems odd that an individual defector should be penalized by disqualification while a group of defectors can escape the net under the pretext of the party split. Another loophole lies in the absence of any provision about the position of a member who has been expelled by the party. Another lacuna is that an independent member is disqualified if he joins any political party after his election. A nominated member, however, is allowed to join a political party within six months of his nomination as a member. 

Ultimately, the success of anti-defection legislation depends not upon amendments to the Tenth Schedule but upon the manner and spirit in which all the political parties. Concerned, including the Speakers, discharge their functions and responsibilities.