Explained: Anti-Defection Law

Mains Paper 2 : Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure |

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level : Anti-defection Law

Mains level : Role of ADL

Cases of defection have been reportedly rising from various states like Goa, Karnataka, Telangana etc.

Anti-defection law in India

For a long time, the Indian political scene was clouded by political defections by members of the legislature. This situation brought about greater instability in the political system.
The infamous “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” slogan was coined against the background of continuous defections by the legislators.
Legislators used to change parties frequently, bringing about chaos in the legislatures as governments fell.
In sum, they often brought about political instability. This caused serious concerns to the right thinking political leaders of the country.
The ‘anti-defection law’ was passed through an Act of Parliament in 1985 by the government under Rajiv Gandhi.
Passed as the 52nd Amendment Act, it added the law as the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.

What all does the Law cover?

It states that members who do the following will lose their membership any House (which could be at the Centre or in a State) if they:

Voluntary resign from their political party from which they have been elected
Vote against the direction of their political party (in legislature)
Does not vote/abstain from voting (in legislature) despite having a direction to vote from their party.

and 3. do not apply if the member has prior permission from his/her party or the party condones the member’s action within 15 days of the voting.
Members independent of any political party will lose their membership if they join one after their election to legislature.
Nominated members will lose their membership if they join a party within 6 months of their nomination to legislature.

Certain Exceptions to the Law

The law provides exceptions from being disqualified as a member of legislature on the following grounds:

When political parties merge with each other entirely
When a political party splits into other parties, subject to not less than a third of the members splitting
When two-thirds (or more) of members belonging to a party join another party without both their parties explicitly merging

The Speaker or the Chairman of the concerned Houses (as applicable) makes decisions on defection matters.
If the Chairman or the Speaker defects, the decisions shall be made by a member elected by the House.

Has the law changed since inception, and if so, how?

Yes, the law was amended in 2003.
When it was enacted first, there was a provision under which if there occurs a split in the original political party and as a result of which one-third of the legislators of that party forms a separate group, they shall not be disqualified.
This provision resulted in large scale defections and the lawmakers were convinced that the provision of a split in the party was being misused. Therefore, they decided to delete this provision.
Now, the only provision which can be invoked for protection from disqualification is the provision relating to the merger, which is provided in Paragraph 4 of the 10th Schedule.

Is the law, as it stands now, open to interpretation?

The first ground for disqualifying a legislator for defecting from a party is his voluntarily giving up the membership of his party.
This term “voluntarily giving up the membership of his party” is susceptible to interpretation.
As has been explained earlier, voluntarily giving up the membership is not the same as resigning from a party.
The Supreme Court has clarified this point by saying that the presiding officer, who acts as a tribunal, has to draw a reasonable inference from the conduct of the legislator.

How far has the law succeeded in achieving its goal?

The law certainly has been able to curb the evil of defection to a great extent.
But, of late, a very alarming trend of legislators defecting in groups to another party in search of greener pastures is visible.
The recent examples of defection in state Assemblies and even in Rajya Sabha bear this out.
This only shows that the law needs a relook in order to plug the loopholes if any.

Conclusion

This law has served the interest of the society.
Political instability caused by frequent and unholy change of allegiance on the part of the legislators of our country has been contained to a very great extent.
That is a story of success of one of the most important legislation that the Indian Parliament has enacted.

Subscribe