The Anti-Defection Law is contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. It was enacted to curb political defections motivated by personal gain, office, or power. It seeks to promote political stability, party discipline, and ethical conduct among elected representatives. Legislators who defect from their political parties face disqualification.
The law was introduced with the objective of strengthening democracy. However, its operation has raised serious constitutional and practical concerns over time.
Constitutional Background
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the Fifty-Second Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, by inserting the Tenth Schedule into the Constitution. The amendment was a response to rampant political defections that destabilized governments, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s.
The law applies to Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislatures. It operates alongside Articles 102 and 191. These articles deal with the disqualification of legislators.
Also Read- Parliamentary Privileges
Meaning of Defection
Defection, in constitutional terms, refers to a legislator abandoning the political party on whose ticket they were elected. It also includes actions against the party’s interests in the legislature.
The Tenth Schedule does not define defection in abstract terms. Instead, it specifies circumstances under which a member is deemed to have defected and is therefore liable to disqualification.
Grounds for Disqualification
A legislator can be disqualified under the Anti-Defection Law on two principal grounds.
First, if a member voluntarily gives up the membership of the political party on whose ticket they were elected. This is not limited to formal resignation. It may be inferred from conduct, speech, or actions indicating disloyalty to the party.
Second, if a member votes in the House against the directions of the political party, there are consequences. The same applies if a member abstains from voting. This includes actions against the authorised whip. This happens without prior permission and without subsequent condonation by the party within the prescribed time.
These provisions aim to enforce party discipline within legislative bodies.
Independent and Nominated Members
Independent members are disqualified if they join any political party after being elected. Since they contest elections without party affiliation, post-election alignment with a party is treated as defection.
Nominated members are allowed to join a political party within six months of taking their seat. If they join a party after this period, they attract disqualification.
Exceptions to Disqualification
Originally, the Tenth Schedule recognised both splits and mergers as exceptions. However, the Ninety-First Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 removed the provision relating to splits.
At present, only mergers are recognised as a valid exception. If at least two-thirds of the members of a legislative party agree to merge with another political party, such members are not disqualified. This provision has often been criticised for facilitating mass defections under the guise of mergers.
Authority to Decide Disqualification
The power to decide questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is vested in the Speaker or Chairman of the House.
Although the Speaker acts as a tribunal under the Constitution, concerns have been raised regarding political bias, as the Speaker is usually a member of a political party. Delays in deciding defection cases have further weakened the effectiveness of the law.
Also Read- Emergency Provisions – Types and Effects
Judicial Review
Initially, decisions of the Speaker were considered final. However, judicial interpretation has clarified that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
Courts can examine whether the Speaker’s decision suffers from mala fides, procedural irregularities, or violation of constitutional mandates. Judicial review acts as a limited but crucial check on partisan exercise of power.
Impact on Parliamentary Democracy
The Anti-Defection Law has contributed to political stability by reducing individual defections. However, it has also had unintended consequences.
By enforcing strict party discipline, the law has weakened the role of legislators as representatives of their constituents. Members often vote according to party directions rather than independent judgment, reducing deliberative debate in legislatures.
The law has also encouraged engineered defections and strategic resignations, undermining its original purpose.
Contemporary Criticism and Challenges
Critics argue that the Anti-Defection Law has failed to curb political opportunism and has instead shifted defections from individual acts to group manoeuvres. The absence of strict timelines for deciding disqualification petitions allows governments to survive through delay tactics.
There are also calls to transfer the adjudicatory power from the Speaker to an independent constitutional authority to ensure impartiality.
Also Read- Ordinance-Making Power of the President and the Governor
The Anti-Defection Law under the Tenth Schedule was enacted to address a serious democratic problem, but its practical operation has exposed significant flaws. While it has reduced open defection, it has also curtailed legislative independence and facilitated indirect political manipulation.
For the law to achieve its constitutional objective, reforms are necessary to ensure timely decisions, impartial adjudication, and a balance between party discipline and democratic debate. Without such reforms, the Anti-Defection Law risks becoming a tool of political convenience rather than constitutional integrity.
Connect with us on Instagram – X – LinkedIn for daily updates, quizzes, and other materials
