Anti-defection law (10th Schedule)

The Anti-Defection Law is contained in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India.
It was added by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 to address the problem of political defection.
Defection refers to the act of a legislator switching parties after being elected on a party ticket.
The law aims to ensure stability in governments by discouraging legislators from changing their political allegiance.
It applies to both the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
The Chairperson or Speaker of the respective House is the deciding authority in defection cases.
A member is disqualified if they voluntarily give up the membership of their party.
Members who vote or abstain from voting against the party's directives without permission are also subject to disqualification.
Independent members are disqualified if they join a political party after the election.
Nominated members can join a political party within six months of being nominated; doing so afterward leads to disqualification.
The law allows exceptions in cases of a merger, where at least two-thirds of the members of a legislative party agree to merge with another party.
The disqualification provisions do not apply to a party split or merger recognized by the Speaker or Chairperson.
The law seeks to uphold the principle of collective responsibility in parliamentary democracy.
It strengthens the political parties' ability to enforce discipline among their members.
The Speaker or Chairperson's decision in defection cases is subject to judicial review.
Judicial review ensures that the Speaker's decision is in line with constitutional provisions.
The Kihoto Hollohan case (1992) upheld the validity of the Anti-Defection Law but allowed judicial review of the Speaker's decisions.
The law has been criticized for undermining the principle of freedom of speech and dissent within political parties.
It reduces the likelihood of political instability caused by frequent party switching.
The law has faced challenges due to delays in decision-making by the Speaker or Chairperson.
Delays in disqualification cases have sometimes led to the misuse of the law for political purposes.
Some argue that the law has weakened the role of individual legislators by making them subservient to party leadership.
The law has encouraged the formation of coalition governments with strong party alliances.
It aims to maintain the sanctity of the mandate given by voters during elections.
The law provides a deterrent to legislators considering defection for personal gain.
Critics argue that the law's provisions for merger and splits are ambiguous and open to misuse.
Efforts have been made to reform the law to address these shortcomings.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for timely decisions in defection cases to prevent political uncertainty.
The Anti-Defection Law is considered a key measure for ensuring political stability in India.
Some have called for the establishment of an independent authority to decide disqualification cases.
The law has been instrumental in curbing the influence of money and power in politics.
The role of the Speaker in defection cases has been a subject of debate due to potential conflicts of interest.
The law has been invoked in various high-profile cases involving state assemblies and the Parliament.
Reforms suggested include removing the Speaker as the adjudicating authority and appointing a judicial body instead.
The Anti-Defection Law is a vital component of India's constitutional framework to ensure democratic integrity.
The law seeks to strike a balance between party discipline and individual freedom of legislators.
It has been a critical tool for maintaining the federal structure of India.
The law underscores the importance of legislators staying true to the mandate on which they were elected.
The Anti-Defection Law continues to evolve through judicial interpretations and legislative amendments.