Hindrance in ways of implementation of Anti-defection laws

In an unprecedented move Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has disqualified three MPs from the Lower House on grounds of defection. The three BSP MPs named Bhalchandra Yadav, Ramakant Yadav and Mohammad Shahid, who had voluntarily shifted their allegiance to Samajwadi Party in 2006.

Under the Tenth Schedule of the constitution, which is also known as anti-defection law, the BSP had filed the petition for the disqualification of the three MPs on the ground that they had voluntarily relinquished the party’s membership and joined the SP in 2006.

The three MPs disqualification under the anti-defection law, after coming into existence in 1985, is the third major disqualification by a Lok Sabha Speaker. Earlier in the year 1991, eight Janta Dal MPs were disqualified by the then Speaker Rabi Ray and the second instance of expelling of four MPs of Ajit Singh group by the then Speaker Shivraj Patil can be cited in this regard.

Before going ahead it is essential to understand what constitution says about the laws of defection.

The Tenth Schedule of the constitution which was annexed in 1985 during the regime of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi with the sole aim to clean the electoral process, talks about the ground for defection: “a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified from being a member of the House, if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs."

But there is a flaw in the existing Anti Defection Act, which allows bulk defection that means legal split of a political party. In other way if the violation of the Act is carried out by one third of the parliamentary strength or the Legislative Party, there could be no disqualification. In this way one-third of the MPs or MLAs of any political party have the legal right to split from the parent party and constitute a new political party.

With the emergence of the coalition era split in a party or defection of the legislators, switch over sides, and withdrawal of support have become a common phenomenon.

In today’s politics the legislators either MPs or MLAs are not available in retail but in wholesale. Their abundance majority encourages them for splitting form the party and conversely shifting their allegiance to the other political party according to their advantages what suits them best at the particular time.

That’s why we have witnessed splits of many political parties and simultaneously birth of new political parties.

The congress many times have expressed its willingness to support the Bill, whatever be the reason either the tenth schedule of Anti Defection Act was incorporated during the Congress regime, but the majority of the parties are not in favour of the Bill, which is the reason of it not getting passed by the parliament.

Direct democracy is not possible for a large country like ours. So the representative democracy at best suited to us. But the Representative Democracy binds legislators to their constituents that they represent. Unfortunately our legislators instead of representing their constituents represent their parties.

Most of this legislation in India cannot be reversed by popular opinion; it is decided solely by Party "High Commands". This is why anti-defection legislation is so popular among parties. A legislator now cannot vote against such laws, because it is against the code of conduct and the policy of most parties and thus would invite anti-defection penalties against the legislator.

The truth is anti-defection law in India has seriously weakened our Democratic set up. Anger or greediness of MPs and MLAs has been used by different political parties to acquire more power at the expense of the people. That is indeed a danger for democracy.