About:
-
- 52nd Amendment Act of 1985– Tenth Schedule of the Constitution
- Aim to discourage political defections by imposing penalties on those who switch parties or violate party discipline.
- Defection has no immediate and automatic effect.
Need:
-
- Prevailing ‘Aya Ram – Gya Ram’ Politics
- Curbing money power
- Promoting stability and cohesion
- Ensure responsibility and loyalty of politicians
Provisions of the law
| Disqualification | • If Members of Political Parties: (a) voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party (b) votes or abstain from voting without obtaining prior permission of party and the act has not been condoned by the party within 15 days. • An independent member joins any political party after such election. • A nominated member joins any political party after six months of him taking the seat. |
| Exceptions | • If a member goes out of his party as a result of merger (two third) of the party with another party. • If a member, after being elected as presiding officer of the House, voluntarily gives up the membership of his party. |
| Deciding Authority | • The presiding officer of the House to decide any question regarding disqualification due to defection. |
| Rule-Making Power | • The presiding officer of a House is empowered to make rules to give effect to the Tenth Schedule. • These rules must be placed before the House for 30 days, which may approve or modify or disapprove them. |
Supreme Court Judgments
-
- Kihota Hollohon vs. Zachilhu and Others (1992)- SC upheld speakers discretion in deciding cases of disqualification of MLAs.
- Kashinath G Jhalmi vs Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly (1993)- Speaker does not have the power to review his decisions to disqualify a candidate.
- Vishwanathan v. Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (1996)- Speaker of the legislative assembly has power to decide cases of defection and his decision is final.
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. the Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors. (2020)- The Speaker should decide defection cases within a ‘reasonable period’.
Recommendations of committees-
-
- Dinesh Goswami Committee- Disqualification should be limited to voluntary give up of membership and abstain from voting.
- Halim Committee- The term ‘voluntarily giving up’ political party’s membership should be comprehensively defined.
- Law commission report- Pre-poll electoral fronts be treated as political parties.
- Venkatchalliah Committee- Defectors should be barred from holding public offices and their votes should be considered invalid.
Evaluation of the Act
| Advantages | Criticism |
|---|---|
| • Greater stability in politics • Facilitates democratic realignment of parties • Reduces corruption at the political level • Gives a clear-cut constitutional recognition to existence of political parties | • Curbs right to dissent of legislators. • The distinction between individual and group defection is irrational. • The discrimination between independent and nominated member is illogical. • Does not specify a time period for presiding officer to decide • Lack of judicial oversight |
91st Amendment Act of 2003
-
- Total number of ministers, shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha.
- A member disqualified on the ground of defection cannot be appointed as a minister.
- The total number of ministers in state shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly. But, not be less than 12.
- A member of either House of a state legislature belonging to any political party who is disqualified on the ground of defection shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a minister.
- A member of either House of Parliament or of State Legislature, disqualified on the ground of defection shall also be disqualified to hold any remunerative political post.
- The defectors have no protection on grounds of splits (earlier split by one-third members exempted).
