E-Paper
Speakers for changes in anti-defection laws
Dehradun: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and the speakers of 18 state assemblies want amendments in India’s anti-defection laws in the wake of the recent controversies
Dehradun: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and the speakers of 18 state assemblies want amendments in India’s anti-defection laws in the wake of the recent controversies and judicial interventions related to defection cases.
On the concluding day of Birla’s meeting with the presiding officers of state assemblies, several participants voiced their concerns and pointed out loopholes in the law that often cast a shadow on the speaker’s role.
“The way people are losing faith in democratic institutions and the way fingers are pointed at presiding officers of legislative bodies is a matter of concern. There is a need to amend the law to uphold the prestige of the institution of Speaker,” Birla said.
He announced that a committee of presiding officers would discuss the issue and come out with a report.
The discussion on the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the anti-defection law, assumes importance in the wake of the Supreme Court’s observation last month about “a growing trend of Speakers of legislative bodies acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral”.
The Court made the observation while upholding the disqualification of 17 lawmakers, whose resignations in July toppled the Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) or JD(S) coalition government in Karnataka and allowed Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to return to power in the state. Sixteen of the 17 subsequently joined the ruling BJP and 13 of them were fielded in the by-polls in Karnataka this month after the court allowed them to contest the election. Eleven the 13 were re-elected.
During discussions on this issue, several presiding officers expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the legal provisions related to anti-defection.
Bihar assembly Speaker Vijay Chaudhury said the anti-defection law needs a clearer framework. He maintained that often, the intent of the law is circumvented by legislators. He added that there was lack on clarity whether the provisions of the law would apply before a party issues a whip or only after.
Rajasthan Speaker CP Joshi suggested that since the presiding officer’s primary duty is to run the house, the power to disqualify a member from the legislative body (for not following a whip or defecting) be given to respective party presidents.
Joshi and a few other presiding officers said that currently, the law is silent on the issue of resignations, one reaso why the Karnataka issue became controversial.
Last month, a three-judge Supreme Court bench spoke at length about the role of presiding officers (speakers) in its 109-page judgment on the issue, which upheld the disqualification of the 17 rebel lawmakers by the then assembly speaker but allowed them to contest the December 5 by-elections.
“In any case, there is a growing trend of speakers acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral,” the court said at the time.
“Additionally, political parties are indulging in horse-trading and corrupt practices, due to which the citizens are denied of stable governments. In these circumstances, the Parliament is required to reconsider strengthening certain aspects of the Tenth Schedule, so that such undemocratic practices are discouraged,” it added.
The 10th Schedule was added to the Constitution in 1985 to tackle what was commonly called Aya Ram, Gaya Ram politics. The phrase was coined after Haryana lawmaker Gaya Lal changed his party thrice in the same day in 1967. During Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s term as the Prime Minister, the 91st Constitutional amendment was introduced in 2003 to restrict the size of a council of ministers to not more than 15% of the total strength of the House to discourage defections motivated by the lure of becoming ministers.
