Day 18 – Q. 5. The anti-defection law was introduced to ensure political stability, but it has often been criticised for stifling legitimate dissent and weakening democracy. Critically analyse this paradox and discuss possible reforms to uphold both stability and democratic debate. (250 words, 15 marks)

Q. 5. The anti-defection law was introduced to ensure political stability, but it has often been criticised for stifling legitimate dissent and weakening democracy. Critically analyse this paradox and discuss possible reforms to uphold both stability and democratic debate. (250 words, 15 marks)

Introduction 

The Anti-Defection Law was enacted through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment (1985),  inserting the Tenth Schedule to curb political defections. While it aimed to foster stability in  governments, concerns remain about its impact on intra-party democracy and dissent. 

Body

Anti-Defection Law is Important for Political Stability 

1. Curbing Opportunistic Shifts: Prevents frequent government collapses due to floor crossing. Example: Defections in Haryana and Andhra Pradesh in the 1970s led to political instability,  prompting the need for legislation. 
2. Discouraging Horse-Trading: Ensures ethical political conduct and stable governance. Example: The 2008 trust vote in Lok Sabha saw allegations of cash-for-votes; the law acts as  a deterrent. 
3. Promoting Party Discipline: Reinforces collective responsibility in the parliamentary system. Example: Helps in smooth passage of budgets and confidence motions, especially in  coalition setups. 
4. Safeguarding Electoral Mandate: Ensures that elected representatives don’t betray the  voters’ trust by switching parties. Example: Mass defections in Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh undermined public mandate,  inviting criticism. 

Issues with the Law 

1. Stifling Dissent: Disallows even principled disagreement within parties. Example: In Maharashtra (2022), the rebel Shiv Sena MLAs were accused under the law  despite claiming to represent the ‘real party’. 
2. Speaker’s Bias: Final arbiter of disqualification is the Speaker, often partisan. Example: Delay in disqualification of defectors in Manipur and Maharashtra raised questions  of impartiality. 
3. Lack of Timely Resolution: No legal deadline for Speaker’s decision, enabling manipulation. Example: In Karnataka (2019), disqualified MLAs were reinstated after delayed judgments.
4. Bypassing Disqualification: Mass defections escape penalty by merging two-thirds of a party. Example: The Goa 2019 defection of 10 Congress MLAs to BJP was protected under merger  clause. 

Judicial Pronouncements 

• Kihoto Hollohan (1992): Upheld the Speaker’s role but allowed judicial review, balancing  authority and fairness. 
• Keisham Meghachandra Case (2020): Directed Speakers to decide disqualification within a  “reasonable time,” ideally within three months. 

Reforms Needed 

1. Independent Tribunal: Transferring adjudication to an external body like the Election  Commission. It was recommended by the Law Commission (170th Report) to ensure  neutrality in adjudication. 
2. Allow Dissent on Specific Issues: Protecting votes not related to no-confidence or money  bills. Dinesh Goswami Committee suggested limiting the law’s scope to preserve democratic  debate. 
3. Time-Bound Decisions: Setting statutory deadlines for disqualification cases. NCRWC and Election Commission both suggested timelines to prevent manipulation. 
   

Conclusion

While the anti-defection law protects political stability, reforms are essential to balance it with  democratic values. Strengthening institutions and narrowing the law’s scope can uphold both  governance and dissent.