Anti Defection Law (ADL)

What is Defection?

Defection, in political terms, refers to a situation where a member of a legislative body, such as a parliament or state assembly, switches allegiance from the political party under which they were elected to another party. This often occurs for personal gains, such as promises of power or other benefits. Defection can harm the trust the electorate has in its representatives and destabilize governments, affecting the overall governance process.

What is the Anti-Defection Law (ADL)?

The Anti-Defection Law (ADL) in India is a legislative framework aimed at preventing political defection among members of the legislature, thereby ensuring political stability and party discipline. Its primary purpose is to deter MPs and MLAs from switching parties or defying party directives, with the threat of disqualification.

Constitutional Provisions of the Anti-Defection Law (ADL)

The Anti-Defection Law in India was introduced via the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, adding the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution, which outlines provisions related to defection. The 91st Amendment Act of 2003 later made modifications to certain aspects of this law. The evolution of this law is detailed in the following sections.

52nd Amendment Act of 1985

The 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 facilitated the disqualification of MPs and MLAs who defect from their political parties. This act amended four constitutional articles:

• Article 101 and Article 190, dealing with the vacation of seats for MPs and MLAs.
• Article 102 and Article 191, addressing disqualification for MPs and MLAs.
  It also introduced the Tenth Schedule, known as the Anti-Defection Law.

Tenth Schedule (10th Schedule)

Added through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, the Tenth Schedule provides guidelines on the disqualification of MPs and MLAs for defection. It specifies that legislators can be disqualified for voluntarily leaving their party or voting against the party’s official position.

91st Amendment Act of 2003

The 91st Amendment Act of 2003 introduced significant changes:

• It limited the total number of ministers in both the Central and State governments to 15% of the total strength of their respective legislative bodies.
• A disqualified member from any political party is also barred from becoming a minister.
• It also removed the exemption that previously protected defectors in cases of splits within parties.

Provisions of the Anti-Defection Law (ADL)

The Tenth Schedule outlines the conditions under which MPs and MLAs can be disqualified for defection:

Disqualification of Members

• Members of Political Parties: If a member voluntarily resigns from their party or votes against their party’s directives without consent, they are disqualified.
• Independent Members: If an independent member joins a political party after being elected, they will be disqualified.
• Nominated Members: A nominated member will be disqualified if they join a party after six months of being elected.

Exceptions

Defection does not apply in two cases:

• A merger of parties, where two-thirds of a party’s members agree to merge with another party.
• The Speaker’s resignation or rejoining of a party after ceasing office.

Deciding Authority

Any questions regarding disqualification due to defection are decided by the Presiding Officer of the House, though this decision is subject to judicial review.
In the Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu Case (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the Presiding Officer is reviewable by the judiciary, rejecting the claim that it could not be challenged in court.

Rule-Making Power

The Presiding Officer has the power to make rules to implement the provisions of the Tenth Schedule. These rules must be approved by the House. The Presiding Officer can take action on defection only after receiving a complaint and must give the accused member a chance to explain before making a final decision.

Advantages of the Anti-Defection Law (ADL)

The ADL offers several advantages:

• It discourages defections driven by personal incentives.
• It promotes political stability by curbing party-switching.
• It facilitates party mergers while maintaining party discipline.
• It reduces political corruption and unnecessary expenditures due to frequent elections.
• It acknowledges the role of political parties in the democratic process.

Criticism of the Anti-Defection Law (ADL)

The ADL has faced several criticisms:

• It fails to distinguish between dissent and defection, limiting a legislator’s freedom to disagree with their party.
• The law allows group defections through party mergers but bans individual defections, which many see as inconsistent.
• The distinction between independent and nominated members regarding defection is seen as unfair.
• The decision-making power given to the Presiding Officer is criticized for potential bias and lack of legal expertise.

Conclusion

The Anti-Defection Law remains a complex and debated aspect of India's constitutional framework. While it is credited with ensuring political stability and reducing corruption, it has been criticized for limiting dissent and for its potential for political bias. Ongoing discussions on reforms and improvements highlight the law’s evolving role in India's democracy.