(Joyjeev Medhi, a Core member of PCLS, a fourth year law student prepared the note) The current lockdown has compelled our Society to find new ways to continue its discussion sessions. It did so by analysing the anti-defection law in India and the role of the Speaker over Skype last week.The Society settled on this topic due to the growing trend of defection in legislatures across the country. The purpose of the entire exercise was to make each other aware of the law, understand it, figure out answers to essential questions that form the base of the legislation and suggest solutions if we were able to come up with any. This note aims to bring the highlights of the discussion to those who missed out: At the outset, we began with a brief introduction on the topic. The Anti-defection law was introduced in 1985 by the Rajiv Gandhi government due to the large number of defections that took place in legislatures across the country. A popular incident was that of an MLA of the Haryana State Assembly who defected three times within the same day. This led to the famous saying of “Aaya Ram gaya Ram” when referring to defections. To deal with this issue, prevent horse-trading in legislatures and have a stable government this law was brought in. A few essential details about the Act which were discussed were: It is the Presiding Officer of the House who decides on the disqualification of a legislator due to defection. A legislator is deemed to have defected if he either voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote.It needs to be noted that there is no time limit within which the Presiding Officer has to give his decision however his decision is reviewable by the courts. The first question which came up was whether the anti-defection law has served its purpose and prevents political horse-trading? This question had different answers from each PCLS member. While some believed that the anti-defection law, in essence, was good and required a few tweaks to sort out the problem other members thought that it is not what the country’s democratic ideals support. The latter argued that in a democratic set up like ours each legislator should be allowed to vote according to his conscience or on the interest of his electorate since that would lead to an actual expression of opinion in legislatures and further better debate. However, this view goes against the premise of the anti-defection law itself which believes that legislation is based on party lines. This brought us to the question, “Do we, as a voter, elect a candidate or a party?” Recognising the importance of a political party in legislation, the alternative to the anti-defection law suggested by some of the PCLS members was that legislators should be allowed to vote their conscience on most issues while mandatorily abiding by the party line on essential votes such that of no-confidence and the budget. The immediate objection to that and any alternative that involved MPs/MLAs voting their conscience was the increased amount of time this would require to make laws resulting in an inefficient legislature. The next question which was addressed was concerning the role of the Presiding Officer in dealing with the disqualification. Is he/she the right person to make this decision? What changes could be brought in to make the law more effective? The PCLS discussed the various suggestions put out by multiple judgements and legal luminaries. Some of which were:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
September 2020
Categories |