Answer:
APPROACH
The introduction:
-
- A brief overview of the anti-defection law (52nd Amendment Act, 1985).
- Original intention: prevent political defections and ensure government stability.
- Unintended consequence: erosion of individual MP roles and stifling of debate.
BODY
Impact of the Anti-Defection Law
-
- Party Whip and Voting.
- Mandatory voting according to party directives.
- MPs as party mouthpieces.
- Lack of diverse perspectives in debates.
Judicial Interpretations
-
- Kihoto Hollohan Zachillhu (1992) case.
Recommendations for Reform
-
- Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990).
- Law Commission’s 170th Report (1999).
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002).
Law’s Impact in Contemporary Times
-
- Farm Bills Debate example.
- Telugu Desam Party (TDP) Case in 2018.
The Conclusion:
-
- Recap of the law’s impact on parliamentary democracy.
- Need for reform to balance political stability and vibrant democracy.
- The importance of restoring MPs’ freedom to express dissent and engage in constructive debates.
INTRODUCTION:
The anti-defection law, introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution. Its primary aim was to prevent political defections motivated by the lure of office or other similar considerations, thereby ensuring the stability of governments. However, this law has eroded MPs’ roles, stifling debate and dissent within Parliament.
BODY:
Impact of the Anti-Defection Law
-
- Party Whip and Voting: The anti-defection law mandates that MPs vote according to their party whips’ directives. This has effectively turned MPs into mere mouthpieces of their parties, disincentivizing them from engaging in meaningful debates or voicing alternative viewpoints.
- Undermining Parliamentary Democracy: The Anti-Defection law has broken the accountability chain by making legislators primarily accountable to the political Parliamentary sessions have become increasingly characterized by a lack of diversity in perspectives and a prevalence of partisan rhetoric rather than substantive discussions on policy matters.
- Controversial Role of Speaker: The law is unclear about the timeframe for the action of the House Chairperson or Speaker in anti-defection cases. Some cases take six months, and some even three Some cases are disposed of after the term is over.
- Judicial Interpretations: The Supreme Court, in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992), upheld the constitutionality of the anti-defection law but allowed for judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions. This ruling highlighted the tension between maintaining party discipline and preserving the democratic rights of MPs to express dissent.
- Farm Bills Debate: During the debate on the three farm bills, MPs with significant knowledge and experience in agriculture could not voice their independent opinions due to the constraints imposed by the anti-defection law. This led to a lack of meaningful discussion and a polarized debate.
- Telugu Desam Party (TDP) Case: In 2018, a TDP MP defied the party whip and abstained from voting in a no-confidence motion. This incident highlighted how the anti-defection law stifles individual dissent and forces MPs to adhere strictly to party lines, even at the cost of their convictions.
WAY FORWARD:
-
- Reforms required: The Anti-Defection Law has failed to curb defections recently and lacks any deterrence effect on legislators. To address its issues, the law shall be reformed/amended. Following the recommendation of Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur (2020), independent tribunals led by retired judges should be established to adjudicate defection matters.
- Internal party democracy: Political parties shall also have internal democracy to listen to and act on different opinions emerging from within. This might restrict the defecting tendencies among the elected representatives and help strengthen the overall parliamentary democracy in the country.
- Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990): Suggested that disqualification should be limited to cases where an MP voluntarily gives up membership or votes against party lines in confidence and no-confidence motions.
- Law Commission’s 170th Report (1999): It recommended that the law apply only to votes that affect the stability of the government, such as confidence motions and budget votes. It also suggested that the President or Governor should decide on disqualification based on the advice of the Election Commission rather than the Speaker.
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002): The anti- defection law should be amended to allow MPs more freedom to express their views without the fear of disqualification, fostering a more vibrant parliamentary democracy.
CONCLUSION:
While the anti-defection law was enacted to ensure political stability, its adverse impact on parliamentary democracy cannot be overlooked. It is imperative to reform the anti-defection law to restore the vitality of parliamentary deliberations. This would ensure MPs can fulfill their roles effectively, contributing to a more robust and dynamic democracy.
Spread the Word