India's Anti-Defection Law prevents political defections by barring members from changing parties or disobeying party directives. It's a mainstay of legislative stability since its enactment in 1985.
The legislation came in response to the spectacle of the 1960s and 1970s, when defections were rife (with Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changing parties three times in a day in 1967 and the "Aaya Ram Gaya Ram" slogan). The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, inserted the Tenth Schedule to stem this. This sought to end the fall of governments due to floor-crossing.
Key Provisions of Anti-Defection Law
There are two grounds for disqualification: voluntarily ceasing to be a member of a party or voting (or abstaining) against a directive without permission, unless forgiven within 15 days. There are exceptions for mergers where two-thirds of a party's members agree to join another party (the original "split" clause of one-third was deleted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003).
Decision-Making Process
Disqualification petitions are decided by the Speaker (Lok Sabha/state assemblies) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha/legislative councils), whose decisions are final but can be challenged in court.
There are time limits for filing petitions, and procedural flaws may lead to court intervention.
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court confirmed the law's constitutionality but invalidated the Speaker's immunity, enabling judicial scrutiny for mala fide reasons. Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) confirmed that "voluntary giving up" may occur through actions. These decisions ensured Speaker impartiality.
Reforms and Changes
The law has been criticised for suppressing dissent, encouraging party whips at the expense of conscience, and risking Speaker bias (as a political nominee). It hasn't stopped "mergers" of MPs. Recommendations include moving the case to the Election Commission, restricting whips to confidence motions, and mandating Speakers' post-election retirement from party politics.
The law has improved government stability, but has been invoked thousands of times, , such as recent state assembly cases. The 2003 amendment curtailed incentives for defection, but current debates show need for better compliance
Also Read: Which is the Newest Ramsar Site of India?
