Defection as merger: On politics, the wave of defections
The Tenth Schedule is hollowed out by unprincipled politics
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A wave of political defections is occurring, with groups of MPs from parties like , , and crossing over to the ruling NDA alliance. These groups are utilizing the 'merger' exception within the anti-defection law to avoid disqualification. This trend raises critical concerns about the efficacy of the law and the potential circumvention of constitutional mandates requiring broad consensus for significant legislative changes.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The core issue revolves around the interpretation and enforcement of the of the Constitution, commonly known as the anti-defection law. Originally introduced by the , it aimed to curb the evil of political defections. Crucially, the strengthened this by removing the provision that protected a 'split' (where one-third of members leave) from disqualification. Currently, under paragraph 4 of the , disqualification does not apply only in cases of a 'merger' – where an original political party merges with another, and at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party agree to such a merger. The editorial highlights how engineered splits are being presented as mergers. The legal contention, as noted in past Supreme Court judgments (like the recent Maharashtra political crisis verdict), is that a merger cannot solely be of the legislature party; the original political party must also merge. The ongoing trend suggests that the intended purpose of the is being undermined by exploiting loopholes.
Governance
The effectiveness of the anti-defection law relies heavily on the presiding officers of the legislature (the Speaker or Chairman). Under the , the decision on questions regarding disqualification rests with the Chairman or the Speaker of such House. The article points out that presiding officers often accept these 'stretched claims' of mergers, facilitating the defections. Furthermore, the role of the judiciary is crucial but complex; while the Supreme Court established in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review, the courts generally wait for the Speaker's decision before intervening. The editorial notes that with the Court holding back judgments on related constitutional questions, the practice of defections continues unchecked, rendering the law practically redundant. This highlights a significant governance challenge regarding the neutral and timely functioning of constitutional offices and the need for clarity in judicial precedents.
Democratic Values
Beyond technical legality, the surge in defections impacts the foundational principles of representative democracy. The immediate consequence of these crossovers is an artificial alteration of the strength of political parties in the and . The editorial argues that this is being done to secure a two-thirds majority necessary to pass constitutional amendments under . The requirement for a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting, plus a majority of the total membership) is intentionally high to ensure that fundamental changes to the Constitution require a broad political consensus. Bypassing this intent through engineered defections undermines the electoral mandate and the spirit of the Constitution. It reduces elections to a mere formality if post-election majorities can be manufactured by inducing members to switch sides.