Disadvantages of anti Defection Law

Sometimes the partisan role played by some speakers due to a conflict of interest is very visible. On several occasions, their bias in favour of a political party has led to maladministration, violations of the Constitution and persistent political instability in a state, affecting the administration in general. A major weakness of the law was that the speaker did not have a deadline to make a decision. By exploiting this loophole and not commenting on the petition, the speaker can allow a defector to enjoy the fruits of the defection and give the ruling party a break. In such a Manipur case, the president had not ruled on the petition for more than two years, after which the Supreme Court intervened and ordered the defector to be removed from the cabinet and denied him access to the assembly for a short time. The removal of the split provision prompted political parties to build (merge) wholesale defectors instead of smaller «retail» defectors. Legislators began resigning from Membership in the House to avoid disqualification of departments. The cap on the size of the Council of Ministers has resulted in an increase in the number of Parliamentary Secretaries positions in the states. Speakers began to take an active interest in political affairs and help build and break governments. The anti-defection law does not provide for a time limit for speakers to decide on a defection procedure. When asked for it, speakers were either quick to comment on defection procedures or delayed action on them for years. Second, it protected legislators from disqualification in cases where there was a split (with 1/3 of the divided members) or a merger (with 2/3 of the merger of the members) of one legislative party with another political party.

Thirdly, it made the president of the legislator concerned the sole arbitrator of the defection proceedings. The seeds of the anti-defection law were sown after the 1967 parliamentary elections. The results of these elections were mixed for Congress. He formed the government in the center, but his strength in Lok Sabha fell from 361 to 283. During the year, he lost control of seven state governments as lawmakers changed their political loyalty. With this in mind, P Venkatasubbaiah, a member of the Lok Sabha Congress who served in the cabinets of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, proposed the creation of a high-level committee to make recommendations to solve the «problem of legislators changing their loyalty from one party to another.» Hot Chair: It is the speaker who is responsible for enforcing the anti-defector law. PTI A violation of the law in any of these scenarios may result in the criminalization of a legislator 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. Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (Anti-Defectors) – 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. The Supreme Court of Calcutta has set Thursday, October 7 as the deadline for West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee to issue an order in the case of the defection of MP Mukul Roy. He ran and won the 2021 general election on a BJP ticket, and then joined the Trinamool Congress. BJP MP Suvendu Adhikari, the opposition leader in the Assembly, asked the president to disqualify Roy and two other BJP MPs to join the Trinamool Congress. These petitions fall under the tenth schedule of the Constitution, i.e.

the anti-defection law. The committee concluded that the split provision had been grossly abused to create multiple divisions within the party, thus not seriously controlling the evil of defection. In addition, it is also observed that the attractiveness of the profit office plays a dominant role in political bargaining, which leads to a flood of defectors and counterparties. Anti-defection proceedings are also under way in other States. In Jharkhand, former CM Babulal Marandi is facing such a trial after merging his party, Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), with the BJP.