The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that it is not powerless if a Speaker delays decisions on anti-defection pleas.

• A Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai emphasized that a Speaker cannot use indecision to undermine the Tenth Schedule.
• The case involved petitions by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders regarding disqualification proceedings against defecting MLAs in Telangana.
• The SC questioned whether constitutional courts could direct Speakers to decide within a reasonable timeframe.
• The Supreme Court warned that if a Speaker ignores SC directions, the court can invoke Article 142 to enforce compliance.

About Anti-Defection Law (ADL)

• It was a response to the toppling of multiple state governments by party-jumping MLAs after the general elections of 1967.
  • For Example: Aaya Ram Gaya Ram was a phrase that became popular in Indian politics after a Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changed his party thrice within the same day in 1967.
• It was Introduced via the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1985) and added as the Tenth Schedule.
• It aims to prevent political instability by disqualifying legislators who defect from their party.
• The 91st Amendment Act (2003) removed provisions allowing exemption in case of party splits.
• Grounds for disqualification:
  • Voluntarily giving up party membership.
  • Voting against party directives without prior approval.
  • Independents joining a party post-election.
  • Nominated members joining a party after six months.
  • For Violating party discipline
    • It involves engaging in activities that go against the interests or principles of their political party. 
    • This could include publicly criticizing the party, working against its objectives, or engaging in anti-party activities.
• Exceptions:
  • Mergers with two-thirds member approval.
  • Presiding officers quitting or rejoining their party post-tenure.
• The members disqualified under antidefinition law can stand for elections from any political party for a seat in the same House

Power of Speaker Under ADL

• The Speaker (LS) or Chairperson (RS) decides on disqualification cases.
• No fixed timeline for deciding defection cases, leading to delays.
• SC in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1993) held that Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review.
• The Speaker can frame rules for ADL implementation, subject to House approval.

Supreme Court’s Capacity in ADL Cases

• Judicial review applies to the Speaker’s decisions if found to be malafide or perverse.
• SC in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) ruled that Speakers should decide disqualification cases within three months.
• SC recommended replacing the Speaker with an independent tribunal for unbiased decisions.

Supreme Court Decisions on ADL

• Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994): A member’s conduct can indicate voluntary defection.
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1993): Declared Speaker’s decisions open to judicial review.
• Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020): Set a three-month timeline for defection cases.

Limitations of the Law

• It restricts legislators from voting based on their conscience, judgment, or the interests of their constituents.
• It impedes legislative oversight by compelling members to follow party leadership decisions rather than voter expectations.

Challenges in Implementation

• Delays in Speaker’s Decisions: The Speaker often takes excessive time to decide on defection cases, weakening the law’s impact.
• Political Bias: The Speaker’s role is not impartial, as they belong to a political party and may act in its interests.
• Unclear Rules: The law lacks clarity on how party whips function and what constitutes defection.
• Judicial Delays: Courts often hesitate to intervene quickly, citing concerns over legislative autonomy.

Suggested Reforms

• Fixed Timeline for Decisions: The Speaker should be required to decide defection cases within four weeks to prevent unnecessary delays.
• Transparent Whip System : Clear guidelines should be established for issuing party whips, ensuring accountability.
• Enhanced Speaker Accountability: Instead of replacing the Speaker with an independent tribunal, mechanisms to ensure neutrality should be introduced.
• Direct Appeals to Higher Courts: Legislators should be allowed to appeal directly to the Supreme Court or High Courts for quick resolutions.
  

International Practices

• USA:  No formal anti-defection law; party loyalty is enforced through political norms and internal discipline.
• UK: Uses a whip system to maintain party discipline but allows legislators to switch parties freely.
• South Africa:  Has constitutional provisions that explicitly prevent party-switching to maintain political stability.
• Canada : Defections are regulated by party caucuses, and violators may face expulsion from their party.

DOWNLOAD PDF