While the law has been able to contain much of the evil of defectors, recent incidents on the Indian political scene underscore the need for a review to fill any gaps. Does the anti-defection law affect the decision-making capacity of the legislator? A violation of the law in any of these scenarios may result in a legislator being punished for defection. The presidents of the legislature (spokesman, president) are the decisive authorities in such cases. The Supreme Court has ruled that legislators can challenge their decisions before the high judiciary. The law stipulates that the legislature has committed a defection if he voluntarily renounces his membership in his party or, in other cases, if he does not take into account the instructions of the party leadership in a vote in the House of Parliament. The conclusion of this action is drawn as the legislator defies the party whip. After it was passed, some lawmakers and parties took advantage of the law`s shortcomings. [16] There was evidence that the law did not serve to stop political outburst and in fact legitimized mass defections by exempting from its provisions laws it called divisions. For example, Chandra Shekhar and 61 other parliamentarians did not receive penalties in 1990 if they changed their loyalty at the same time.
[17] The Lok Sabha spokesman did not allow renegade members of Janata Dal`s dissident faction to explain their views. [18] Another aspect of the law that was criticized was the speaker`s role in deciding on cases that arose from political defectors. The impartiality of the presidents of various chambers has been called into question with regard to the granting of official recognition to various factions of political parties. Questions have been raised about the non-partisan role of the president because of his political background within the party of which he was elected president. [19] [18] In 1991, Janata Dal (S) was accused of undermining the spirit of the anti-defection law by keeping defaulting members in ministerial positions. Later, all opposition members of the House of Representatives submitted an affidavit to the Indian president, calling on him to remove the ministers. Finally, in response to pressure to save the fallen dignity of the Speaker and the House, the Prime Minister fired renegade MPs from their ministerial positions. [18] The amended Act stipulated that a member disqualified for transfer was not to hold a ministerial or other lucrative political office before the end of his or her term as a member. The amended 2003 Act excluded the provisions of the Tenth Schedule relating to the approval of defectors resulting from divisions.
[22] The amended law also stipulated that the number of ministers in the states and union territories should not exceed fifteen percent of the total number of members in the respective chamber. [21] The anti-defection law recently made headlines when the Calcutta Supreme Court asked West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee to pass a defector case involving Mukul Roy (a state deputy). Learn all about this law here and how it works for the benefit of the Indian Constitution and democracy in the following article. However, the law does not bind lawmakers to their political parties forever. The legislator may change parties without risk of disqualification in various specified circumstances. This law allows the party to merge with another if 2/3 of the members accept this merger. None of the members will be charged with defection in such a case. In other cases, if a person has been elected president and has had to resign from his or her party for that reason, he or she may join the party when he or she leaves that position. To combat the scourge of political defection, a committee was formed during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1967 under the chairmanship of Y.B. Chavan. This committee presented a report in 1968, which led to a first attempt to introduce legislation to combat overflow in Parliament. Although the opposition supported the bill, the government, then led by Indira Gandhi, referred it for consideration by a special joint committee; He did not leave the committee until all other legislative proposals were declared invalid by subsequent elections.
[6] Some commentators have said that the law has failed and have recommended its abolition. Former Vice President Hamid Ansari suggested that this only applies to rescuing governments in motions of censure. The Electoral Commission has proposed that it be the decisive authority in the event of a defection. Others argued that the president and governors should hear petitions from defectors. And last year, the Supreme Court said Parliament should establish an independent tribunal headed by a retired judge from the higher judiciary to rule on defection cases quickly and impartially. The law does not provide for a time limit within which the president must rule on a defection case. There have been many cases where a spokesperson has not determined the case of a Member expiring before the end of parliament. There have also been cases where defecting MPs have become ministers while a defector petition against them was pending with the President. Last year, the Supreme Court sacked a Manipur minister when the spokesman failed to rule on the defector`s motion against him, even after three years. The court ruled that speakers should ideally make a decision on a defector`s request within three months. In India, there have been many cases of defectors. Many MPs and MPs have changed parties.
In Jharkhand, former CM Babulal Marandi is also facing a tenth trial scheduled after merging his party, Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), with the BJP. We hope that the above explanation will explain a lot about the law to readers. In 2015, the Hyderabad Supreme Court refused to intervene after hearing a petition claiming that the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly had delayed action against a member under the anti-defector law. [9] It happened in 1967. The case became a basis for parliament to include the 10th Annex in the Indian Constitution. This law establishes the procedure by which legislators may be disqualified due to defections of the Speaker of a legislature on the basis of a petition from another Member. Between 1957 and 1967, Congress (I) became the sole beneficiary of the defectors. It lost 98 of its lawmakers but gained 419, while those who left other parties and did not join Congress (I) formed new separate parties, with the aim of exercising power through a coalition government in the future, rather than joining established governments. This situation gave Congress (I) a strong grip on power. In the 1967 elections, approximately 3,500 members were elected to the legislatures of various states and union territories; Of these elected representatives, about 550 of their parent parties later defected, and some politicians crossed the floor more than once. [5] The Anti-Defector Act aims to create a stable government by ensuring that legislators do not change sides […].