Introduction
In a vibrant democracy like India, political stability is crucial for effective governance. However, rampant defections by elected representatives—popularly called “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” politics—led to frequent collapses of governments in the 1960s–1980s. To curb this menace and maintain political integrity, the Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1985.
What is the Anti-Defection Law?
The Anti-Defection Law is enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. It lays down the grounds for disqualification of MPs and MLAs on the basis of defection to promote political stability and discourage opportunistic switching of parties.
Background and Need for the Law
- In the decades after Independence, India witnessed frequent political defections.
- The term “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” was coined in 1967 after Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changed parties thrice in a single day.
- By 1985, over 400 defections were recorded in various states.
- This led to instability, misuse of public mandate, and horse-trading.
- Hence, the Anti-Defection Law was introduced to:
- Ensure loyalty to the party
- Prevent unethical political practices
- Promote stable governments
Constitutional Provisions: The Tenth Schedule
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Added by | 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 |
| Part of Constitution | Tenth Schedule |
| Applies to | Both Parliament (MPs) and State Legislatures (MLAs) |
| Authority | Speaker/Chairperson of the House |
| Main objective | Disqualify elected representatives for defection |
Grounds for Disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law
A Member of Parliament or State Legislature can be disqualified:
a. Voluntarily Giving Up Membership
- If a member voluntarily resigns or acts in a way indicating intent to leave the party (even without formal resignation).
b. Voting/Abstaining Against Party Whip
- If a member votes or abstains in the House contrary to the party’s direction (whip), without prior permission.
c. Independent Members Joining a Party
- An elected independent member who joins a political party after elections.
d. Nominated Members
- A nominated member is disqualified if he/she joins any political party after 6 months of nomination.
Exceptions to the Law
The Tenth Schedule initially allowed exemptions in case of splits and mergers, but changes have been made:
| Exception | Details |
|---|---|
| Mergers | If 2/3rd of a legislative party merges with another party, the remaining members are not disqualified. |
| Splits (Repealed in 2003) | Earlier, 1/3rd of members forming a new group avoided disqualification, but this provision was removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003. |
Amendments to the Law
91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003:
- Disallowed exemption for splits (1/3rd provision removed).
- Made disqualification mandatory for defecting ministers.
- Limited number of ministers in a state to 15% of legislative strength.
Role of the Speaker/Chairperson
- The decision of disqualification lies with the Speaker (Lok Sabha/State Assembly) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha/Legislative Council).
- Their decision is subject to judicial review (post Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu, 1992).
Landmark Judgments
| Case | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) | Upheld the law’s constitutional validity and allowed judicial review of the Speaker’s decision. |
| Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) | “Voluntarily giving up membership” can be inferred from conduct, not just written resignation. |
| Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) | Emphasized that constitutional morality should guide decisions. |
| Speaker Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Case (2016) | The Supreme Court can intervene in Speaker’s decisions when there is a constitutional violation. |
Criticisms of the Anti-Defection Law
| Criticism | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Curbs dissent | Prevents MPs/MLAs from expressing independent views due to fear of disqualification. |
| Encourages party dictatorship | Excessive control of the party leadership over elected representatives. |
| Misuse by Speakers | Politically motivated decisions in favor of ruling party. |
| Delay in decisions | Disqualification cases often kept pending, weakening the law’s impact. |
| Applies only in legislature | Defections in public or internal party meetings escape scrutiny. |
Reforms Suggested by Committees
| Committee/Commission | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) | Disqualification should be for only those voting against the party on no-confidence motions and money bills. |
| Law Commission 170th Report | Decision on disqualification should be made by President/Governor on EC’s advice, not the Speaker. |
| Election Commission of India | Wants power to decide disqualification cases instead of the Speaker. |
| 2nd ARC (2007) | Limit the law to confidence and no-confidence motions only. |
Importance of Anti-Defection Law in Indian Democracy
- Ensures stability of governments
- Reduces horse trading and unethical practices
- Maintains party discipline
- Helps in upholding the mandate of the people
- Promotes cleaner political practices
Comparative Perspective: Anti-Defection Laws Across Countries
| Country | Approach to Defection |
|---|---|
| India | Constitutional provision under Tenth Schedule. Strict disqualification for defection. |
| UK | No law against defection. Legislators can switch parties without losing their seat. |
| USA | No anti-defection laws; floor crossing is allowed freely. |
| Bangladesh | Article 70 of the Constitution disqualifies MPs for voting against party lines. Even stricter than India. |
| South Africa | Had a constitutional amendment to allow floor-crossing; repealed it in 2009 due to instability. |
Recent Controversies & High-Profile Cases
1. Karnataka MLAs’ Disqualification (2019)
- 17 MLAs resigned and were disqualified by the Speaker.
- Supreme Court upheld disqualification but allowed them to recontest elections.
- Exposed delay and political influence in the Speaker’s decision.
2. Goa Assembly Defection (2019)
- 10 of 15 Congress MLAs joined BJP.
- Protected under 2/3rd merger rule.
- Criticized as backdoor defection despite being legally valid.
3. Maharashtra Political Crisis (2022–23)
- Factionalism within Shiv Sena led to dramatic realignment of power.
- Raised questions about who is the “real party”—an area the law is vague about.
- Matter referred to the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
Reforms Proposed by Experts and Judiciary
| Reform Proposal | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Transfer decision-making from Speaker to independent tribunal or EC | To ensure neutrality and quick decisions |
| Limit whip application to only crucial votes | To allow democratic debates |
| Time-bound decisions by the Speaker | To prevent deliberate delays |
| Clearly define “voluntarily giving up” | Reduce ambiguity |
| Make defection a criminal offence in severe cases | Act as a strong deterrent |
Conclusion
While the Anti-Defection Law was enacted with the noble intention of curbing political opportunism, its implementation remains contentious. Though it has brought a degree of stability, the law has also raised concerns over curbing free speech of elected members and abuse by Speakers.
Reforms are essential to strike a balance between stability and inner-party democracy, ensuring that elected representatives are accountable to both their party and the people.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. When was the Anti-Defection Law enacted?
It was enacted in 1985 through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment.
Q2. What is the main objective of the law?
To prevent political defections and ensure governmental stability.
Q3. Who decides on disqualification?
The Speaker or Chairman of the respective House, subject to judicial review.
Q4. What are the exceptions to the law?
Only mergers involving at least 2/3rd of members of a party are exempted.
Q5. Can a defector contest elections again?
Yes, but they must resign and re-contest, unless disqualified under the law.
