What events are related with Kuldeep Bishnoi: He is an Adampur MLA, who
has not yet been removed from the party after voting against Ajay Maken, the
official Congress candidate. He isn’t likely to be kicked out because it would
help him in keeping his seat. In the events that he had defected from the party or
joined another party, the anti-defection law would force him to run for office
again from his constituency Adampur. The Supreme Court had given a
clarification that a member of the Rajya Sabha cannot be disqualified on the
basis of defection (in presidential elections) for not voting for a party candidate.1
However, the Tenth Schedule’s Paragraph 2 (1) (a) states that if an MLA
voluntarily resigns, he is no longer eligible to serve as a member of the House.
A MLA is also ineligible under Paragraph 2 (2) if he joins another political
party. A petition must be submitted to the Speaker for the disqualification of a
member, and his judgement is considered final under Paragraph 6 (1) because
Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule bars court jurisdiction.
What is Anti-defection law?
Origin (1967) – ‘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. The anti-defection statute aimed to stop such political
defections that could be brought on by office rewards or other similar factors.
Era begins in 1985- In 1985, the Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution.
It outlines the procedure by which parliamentarians may be disqualified from
serving on a legislative body on the basis of defection based on a petition by
any other member of the House. A lawmaker is considered to have defected if he
voluntarily leaves his party or defies the leadership’s instructions
during a vote. This suggests that a lawmaker who defies (abstaining from voting
or voting against) the party whip on any matter risked losing his seat in the
House. Both the Parliament and state legislatures are subject to the statute.
Exceptions to this law
Legislators may, in some cases, switch parties without running the risk of losing
their eligibility. A party may combine with or into another party in accordance
with the legislation if at least two-thirds of its legislators support the merger.
In such a case, neither the individuals who choose to unite with the original
party nor those who choose to remain with it will be disqualified. On the
recommendation of the Election Commission, several expert groups have
suggested that the President (in the case of MPs) or the Governor (in the case of
MLAs) should decide whether to disqualify a member instead of the Presiding
Officer. This would be comparable to the procedure used for disqualification if
the person holds a profit-making office (i.e. the person holds an office under the
central or state government which carries a remuneration, and has not been
excluded in a list made by the legislature).
A time limit within which the Presiding Officer has to decide?
The Presiding Officer’s decision about a disqualification plea may be made at
any moment, according to the law. The petitioner seeking disqualification has
no choice but to wait for this decision to be made because courts cannot
interfere until the Presiding Officer has reached a decision on the issue. In a
number of instances, the courts have voiced their displeasure with the
unnecessarily long time it takes to decide these petitions.
This delay in making decisions has occasionally led to members of the House
who have left their parties remaining in office. In certain cases, opposition
lawmakers have been appointed to government positions as ministers while
continuing to serve in the legislature as members of their original party.
Does the anti-defection law affect the ability of legislators to make
decisions?
The anti-defection statute prevents lawmakers from switching allegiances in an
effort to maintain a stable administration. This rule, however, also forbids a
legislator from casting a vote in accordance with his conscience, judgement, or
the interests of his constituents.
By assuring that members vote based on party leadership decisions and not what
their people would like them to vote for, such a circumstance hinders the
legislature’s ability to oversee the government. Regardless of the issue’s nature,
political parties instruct MPs on how to vote on the majority of topics.
According to a number of analysts, the rule should only apply to votes that
affect the stability of the administration.
