- The Maharashtra rebellion of Shiv Sena members has again brought to the fore the apparent weaknesses in the law governing the defection, even if it is within the legally permissible parameters. Of course, the Indian political landscape is dotted with several instances of elected representatives jumping the ship when lured with attractive incentives from the opposition ranks. Did someone mention ideologies and ethically binding consciousness? Not even expect an iota of thought towards such a moral high ground usually adopted by the leaders wishing to browbeat the electorate through oratory. However, the present-day electorate has become wiser and cannot be fooled so easily anymore. They can read through the debauchery.
PC: Sanjay Hegde
- Staying on the subject, the Shiv Sena rebellion has put the anti-defection law back in focus for sure. As you are aware, the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule, inserted in 1985 and amended in 2003, hasn’t really killed the market for legislature members. Sadly, it’s just made the reserve price even higher. Yes, some argue the law must be made even tougher. Others say the law kills intra-party debate, and rightly so. Further, some MPs bemoan the inability to have principled dissent from the party line because of the disqualification threat. The question may arise as to why so. The MPs cite problematic disqualification criteria like voting against a party whip. Mind you, these are genuine reasons. What should be done then? Keep the law but clear the muddle surrounding.
- Delving further will reveal the possible way out. The law’s provisions give no time frame for making decisions and are generally badly drafted. Also, speakers and governors aren’t neutral umpires as has been proved time and again. Further, courts have also muddied waters with differing interpretations. For instance, in Maharashtra, 16 random Sena rebel MLAs received disqualification notices though the Shinde faction had crossed the two-third threshold to evade disqualification. This reveals weaknesses in the anti-defection law. It was a clear attempt to break a legitimate rebellion by reducing the rebel contingent’s numbers. Sometimes punishment is quick, as in 2019 when the Karnataka speaker disqualified 17 Congress-JD(S) MLAs despite their resigning house membership.
PC: Sanjay Deka
- Not only that, but the speaker also overreached by barring them from the assembly’s tenure, which the Constitution doesn’t prescribe. At other times, proceedings have been inexplicably slow, for example, against AIADMK rebels in Tamil Nadu and Congress defectors in Manipur and Madhya Pradesh. Inexplicably, there is the confusion created by the likes of the 2016 SC judgment that restored a Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh, though rebels who had crossed over to the People’s Party of Arunachal under Kalikho Pul met the two-third threshold. Sometimes verdicts are delayed, defanging the law. Undoubtedly, Tenth Schedule raised the bar on defections. But Parliament, presiding officers, and courts must come together to create a more elegant version of it. Hopefully, the lawmakers realize the folly to strengthen the Act without any further delay.
