an appraisal of the anti defection law
DESCRIPTION
Indian ConstitutionTRANSCRIPT
Constitutional law
An appraisal of Anti Defection Law
Right to Dissent under the Anti Defection Law
Srinivas 519
5th Semester
October 2011
“A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”
- Justice Charles Evans Hughes
Constitutional Background
One of the greatest achievements of the Indian democracy as compared to other countries which
gained independence the same time and which have more or less fallen into despotism has been the
fact that we continue to cherish a vibrant and dynamic democratic system. Nevertheless, the Indian
democracy has been plagued endlessly by various impediments, one of the most serious being the
evil of rampant political defection which has haunted Indian polity for over 30 years and has more
than often threatened to undermine the democratic character of the Indian parliamentary system.
The politics of defection has been the bane of the parliamentary system in India1 and Indian politics
has been a silent testimony to the process of defection right from the pre independence central
assembly days. Defections and splits in parties have always been a feature of Indian politics and in
the face of bare reality, every time the national parliament or state legislatures return a less-than-
certain outcome, allegations of horse trading along with "suitcases" drown out every other public
discourse. In the mad circus that follows, parties spirit their legislators away, hide them, suborn
them, and then triumphantly parade them before the world.
The issue first assumed serious significance in the face of continued political instability and horse
trading preceding and following the formation of coalition governments in several states as well as
the center after the fourth general election held in 1967. Thereafter it continued to draw serious
attention of the people and in many cases of ‘Operation alliance’ and ‘Operation topple’ between
1967 and 1973 as many as 16 state governments were toppled in quick succession with over 2,700
cases of defection taking place.
Etymologically, the word ‘defection’ is defined as an abandonment of duty, loyalty, principle, or
falling away from one’s religion or duty. In the present context, the political ramification of
‘defection’ can mean the crossing of the floor of a Legislature by a member while ‘Floor Crossing’ is
defined as changing one’s allegiance from one party to another.
1 M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 48, (6th ed. 2006)
In essence, The formation of coalition governments which is an upshot of the democratically
inherent party system, as is known, has always been a marriage of convenience constituting of
heterogeneous elements seeing that political parties having no ideological similarity join together
to share power. The consequent dismissal of these coalition governments is also brought about by
the dissatisfied and disgruntled legislators who are possibly not accommodated as ministers or
given charge. As a result of their ever growing lust for power and positions, the legislators change
their party affiliation and jump over to other political parties, which though in a minority, cherish
the dream of forming a government on the strength of such synthetic majority explaining the
convoluted logic behind the vice of political defections. Political defection is seen to cause
government instability and is considered undemocratic as it essentially negates electoral verdict. In
fact the importance of party cohesion to parliamentary systems cannot be undermined by
avaricious political interests as “Cohesion and discipline matter in the daily running of parliaments.
The maintenance of a cohesive voting bloc inside a legislative body is a crucially important feature
of parliamentary life. Without the existence of a readily identifiable bloc of governing politicians,
the accountability of the executive to both legislatures and voters falls flat. It can then be seen, then,
as a necessary condition for the existence of a responsible government.”2
The genesis of the Anti Defection Law as we know today can be traced back to 4th General Elections
in 1967 in which no single party was able to secure the requisite majority. This gave way to what
was a fertile ground for a disturbing trend whereby legislators were constantly being lured away
from their political parties with a view to toppling existing governments and forming new ones
leaving behind a trail of political uncertainty bringing the politics of opportunism into the forefront.
Recognizing the menace of defection was spreading among political ranks, it became imperative to
enact a legislation that could effectively curb this rising tendency and the Parliament in an attempt
to curb the malady of defection led to the setting up of a Committee under the chairmanship of the
then Home Minister Y.B.Chavan. In pursuance of the recommendations of the committee, a
Constitution Amendment Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Government. The Bill
intended to render defectors ineligible for certain offices of profit for a certain period of time.
However, the Bill did not succeed because the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the Bill lapsed.
Subsequently, in 1985, the bill was revamped and re-introduced and the 10th Schedule to the Indian
Constitution popularly referred to as the ‘Anti-Defection Law’ was inserted by the 1985
2 Shaun Bowler, David Farrell and Richard Katz, 'Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments', Ohio State University Press, Columbus, 1999, p. 6. As cited in Sarah Miskin, Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship, Information and Research Services, Research Paper No. 4,2002-03
Amendment to the Constitution with the intent to combat ‘the evil of political defections.’ The
reasons for the addition of this Schedule were explained by the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Fifty-second Amendment (1985) to the constitution in the following words,
“The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not
combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the
principles which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the address by the
President to Parliament that the government intended to introduce in the current session of
Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the
above assurance.”3
The Constitution Fifty Second Amendment Act changed four Articles of the Constitution, viz 101(3)
(a), 102(2), 190(3) (a), 191(2), and added the Tenth Schedule. The Tenth Schedule is often referred
to as the anti-defection law and the legislation contains eight paragraphs - the first one deals with
definitions, the second states the provisions which disqualifies members from the membership of
Parliament or State Legislatures, the fourth states that disqualification is not going to apply in cases
of merger, the fifth sets out certain exemptions, the sixth and seventh states the person who would
be deciding the disputes regarding defections and barring jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of
questions on disqualification and the last paragraph contains provisions for the Speaker and the
Chairman to make rules in order to give effect to the provisions contained in the schedule.
Right to Dissent and Freedom of Expression under Anti Defection Law
The emergence of party based political structures as the central organizational pillar of contemporary democracies has had a rather peculiar impact on the functioning of democratic process. The credibility of parliamentary debate and democratic process has lately been undermined by repeated instances of abuse of law and parliamentary procedure as the threat to parliamentary democracy comes not from any place outside the institution but from the legislation which it has spawned. The Anti Defection law as it stands today while succeeding in many of its original objectives has however led to misinterpretation and undermining of the role of the legislator and the importance of dissent in a parliamentary form of democracy. The present form of the law effectively puts the Member of Parliament into the straight jacket of obedience and places the party ideology at higher pedestal over the views and opinions of the legislator by suppressing logical debate or dissent and effectively restricting the legislators from voicing the true concerns of the people which may oppose the position of the party and thereby endanger the very concept of democracy.
3 Jenna Narayan, Defect-Shun: Understanding Schedule X to the Constitution of India,
Freedom of expression is an essential and fundamental characteristic of the Indian constitution and
dialogue in the parliament is considered as fundamental tenet of the parliamentary democracy.
Political dissent is an essential precept for the effective functioning of any democracy. Political
dissent refers to any expression which conveys dissatisfaction with, or opposition to, the policies of
a body of government. The expression may take the form of violence or non violence –including
vocal disagreement, civil disobedience, demonstration, lobbying and use of violence. Peaceful
dissent is a mark of an open society where freedoms are protected4. Interestingly, the anti defection
law expressly prohibits the right to dissent which has over the years attracted the question of the
constitutionality of law.
Specifically , Paragraph 2(1) (a) and (b) provides the disqualifications incurred by a member and It
gives effect to this principle and sentiment by imposing a disqualification on a Member who votes
or abstains from voting contrary to "any directions" issued by the political party. This provision
also recognizes two exceptions; one, when the member obtains from the political party prior
permission to vote or abstain from voting, and the other, when the Member has voted but his action
has been condoned by the political party. Under Paragraph 2(1) (b) “dissent becomes defection”5
and it deals with a member who expresses his dissent from the stand of the political party to which
he belongs by voting or abstaining from voting in the House, contrary to the direction issued by the
political party. Under this provision, the member can be penalized with disqualification and there
have been quite a few instances of disqualification from the Parliament, under this law. For
instance, in 1991, eight Janata Dal MPs for siding with the Chandra Shekhar government; in 1993,
four MPs from a faction of the Janata Dal for backing the Narasimha Rao government; and, more
recently, three Bahujan Samaj Party MPs for defecting to the Samajwadi Party6.
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors, it was contended that the provisions of the Tenth Schedule
constitute a ‘flagrant violation’ of those fundamental principles and values which are basic to the
sustenance of the Parliamentary democracy. It negates the freedom of speech, right to dissent and
freedom of conscience of our parliamentarians. It was also contended that the Tenth Schedule
impinges upon the rights or immunities under Article 105(2). The court said “there are certain side
effects and fall out which might affect and hurt even honest dissenters and conscientious objectors,
but these are the usual plus and minus of all areas of experimental legislation. In these areas, the
distinction between what is constitutionally permissible and what is outside it is marked by a ‘hazy
4 What is Political Dissent?5 Para 6 of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors AIR 1993 SC 4126 Barun Mitra, Anti- Defection: A Law Endangering Democracy, Mint, August 21st, 2008,
gray line’ and it is the Court’s duty to identify, ‘darken and deepen’ the demarcating line of
constitutionality7…
By a 3:2 majority, the Court held that the provisions of the Tenth Schedule were not violative of the
freedom of speech, vote and conscience of the members as Such provisions in the view of the Court
are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled
and unethical political defections. It said that the freedom of speech of a Member is not an absolute
freedom. The freedom is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing
orders regulating the Procedure of the House [Article 105(1) and Article 194(1)]8.
In spite of the majority decision given by the Supreme Court, the judges opined that at the same
time, the speaker’s order under the law disqualifying a member of the legislature on the ground of
defection is subject to judicial review. The court held, while rejecting the contention that the entire
Xth schedule, even after the exclusion of the contentious clauses, would be violative of the basic
structure of the constitution in so far as the provisions of the schedule affect the democratic rights
of the elected members of the legislatures and, therefore, of the principles of parliamentary
democracy, the majority of judges have ruled that the Speaker/Chairman acts as a ‘tribunal’
adjudicating upon the rights and obligations and his decision in a defection case would thus be open
to judicial review under articles 136, 226 and 227. It was also held that the parliamentary
privileges as guaranteed under Article 105 are not violated, as the provisions in the Tenth Schedule
do not result in any proceeding in any Court, thus safeguarding the guaranteed immunities.
The aim of such strict interpretation of what constitutes a defection, by the Court, may be to
prevent a politician from staying with a party while continually opposing its decisions for it is
believed that dissent within a party on the floor of the Legislature, shows lack of party discipline. As
parties cannot achieve their goals if politicians continually choose to pursue their independent
goals, a party where the members do not put up a united front in the Legislature may appear to the
electorate as a fractious and divided party and they may choose to refrain from voting for the
party as dissent from the party line may damage the party’s reputation with voters. Nonetheless, a
curb on the right to dissent is bound to have a serious consequence of curtailing a politician’s
freedom to exercise her or his judgment and act against party policies and procedures. In a party
comprised of a number of individuals, each with their own independent view and different sets of
priorities, which may differ from that of the party, while it may contribute to difficulty in
7 AIR 1993 SC 4128 Supra
maintaining cohesion in parties as one way for the political parties to maintain cohesion is through
party discipline, it is vital that there exists freedom of expression and right to dissent more so ever
in the apex governing body of the country. In this aspect, an alternative route must be charted out
as the law in its present form more or less forces the members of a particular party to be bound and
follow the direction of their party whips or face disqualification. The right to dissent in a
parliamentary democracy is of exceptional importance as it marks the line between the between a
democracy and a dictatorship and it is the cornerstone upon which the edifice of democracy is
based upon. This is more so relevant when it concerns the rights of very legislators who frame the
law and are responsible for the furtherance of democratic dialogue. In a nutshell, the closing
remarks of Justice Khanna in his dissenting judgment in the landmark Habeas Corpus Case where he
quotes Justice Charles Evans practically sums up the indispensable importance of the right to
dissent.
“A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future
day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge
believes the court to have been betrayed.”
In light of various political developments over the past decades, there has been a growing concern
over the constitutionality and effectiveness of the Anti Defection law, not just in terms of right to
dissent but other provisions of the law. In the aspect of right to dissent, The schedule suffers where
it does not provide for that rare occasion when considerations of conscience brings about a change
in members convictions and hence and honorable exit from the current party by virtue of his
crossing over to the other side. In essence, it does not admit of any right to dissent on the part of the
lawmakers as the schedule has confused the word dissent, i.e., defiance of party direction of whip
with that of defection, as it has provided for unseating of members by the party leadership for
voting against the party whip on the floor of the house. It is essential to note that in the UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, which have similar parliamentary system, this defiance is not fraught
with any such penal consequences. Even otherwise, the provisions of curbing the evils of defection
are not free from loopholes and in some quarters it is believed that the Schedule has been
responsible for reinvigorated horse trading and consequent corrupt practices present in our body
polity. Practically, The Tenth Schedule in its current form does not contain any exhaustive
definition to facilitate interpretation of provisions relating to splits and mergers, the exact meaning
of legislature party, political party and original political party.
While The Anti-Defection Law was created to try and stop the members of the Parliament from
switching loyalties at a drop of the hat, and to stabilize polity, the law in its present form violates
one of the basic features of the Constitution - democracy. Parliamentary debate has thereby become
largely redundant. It also violates the principle of representative democracy by empowering the
party, and undermining the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents.
Thus, the evil of political defection across our body polity and its consequent deleterious effect on
our method of governance can only be strongly tackled if necessary constitutional reforms are
carried out and changes in attitudes towards this problem are achieved by effective mobilization of
support both at the national, regional and local level for the adoption of such mechanisms which
promote the long term objective of a strong and stable political governance.
References
Books
M.P. Jain, 5th Edition, 2003 Vol. 2 Indian Constitutional Law"
Constitutional Law of India: Vol.3 : HM Seervai
Articles and Publications
Whether dissent equals defection in Indian Parliament? by Jeet Chaudhuri
The Anti-Defection Law – Intent and Impact, Background Note for the Conference on Effective
Legislatures, PRS Legislative Research
Laws Against Party Switching, Defecting, or Floor-Crossing in National Parliaments by
Kenneth Janda, Northwestern University
In Search of Party Cohesion: The Emergence of Anti-Defection Legislation in Israel and India
by Csaba Nikolenyi and Shaul Shenhav
‘Defect-Shun’: Understanding Schedule X to the Constitution of India by Jenna Narayan
Defection and Dissent in India : A Reappraisal of Anti-Defection Law by Dr Biswajit
Mohapatra
Anti-defection Law: Where the Shoe Pinches? by K S Venkatraman
Schedule X of Our Indian Constitution- A Myth or a Reality?
An Analysis of Disqualification of Members of Parliament by Contributed Paper
-