The issue of defections in Legislative Assemblies has become frequent and contentious, raising serious concerns about democratic integrity in recent years.

Rise of Political Defections in India

• Political Strategy: Ruling parties, notably the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have been accused of strategically engineering defections to augment legislative strength, especially in hung or narrowly won Assemblies.
• Role of the Speaker: In several cases, the Speaker — often from the ruling party — delays action on disqualification petitions filed under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). 
  • This delay allows defectors to retain their seats and even assume ministerial positions, pending adjudication.
• Notable Cases: In Manipur (late 2010s) and Maharashtra, such delays enabled mass defections to be institutionalized post-election.
  • In Telangana (2024), disqualification petitions filed by the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) against 10 defectors to the Congress were acted upon by the Speaker only after nearly a year.

Judicial Response to Defections

• Timely Action: The Supreme Court, responding to the BRS petition, observed that it is not powerless when Speakers fail to act. Justice B.R. Gavai noted that while the Court cannot dictate outcomes, it can insist on a decision within a reasonable timeframe.
• Constitution Bench Judgment (May 2023): A five-judge Bench emphasized that Speakers must act with “propriety and impartiality”, reiterating that delays undermine the anti-defection framework.
• Maharashtra Precedent (October 2023): The Court had set a deadline for the Maharashtra Speaker to act on pending disqualification petitions, reinforcing that judicial monitoring is essential.
• Supreme Court Observations: In 2020, the Court urged Parliament to amend the Constitution and strip Speakers of exclusive power under the Tenth Schedule. It proposed an independent tribunal to decide on defections, ensuring fairness and neutrality

Structural Flaws

• Conflict of Interest: Speakers are elected from the ruling party, making neutral adjudication rare despite constitutional expectations.
• Parliament’s Inaction: Despite repeated judicial nudges, no constitutional amendment has been made to reform the anti-defection adjudication mechanism, allowing the status quo to persist.

Conclusion

The persistent misuse of anti-defection laws, abetted by partisan Speakers and political opportunism, demands urgent reform both institutional (via constitutional amendments) and electoral (via voter awareness and accountability).

DOWNLOAD PDF