The Anti-Defection Law in India was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 to curb political defections and promote party discipline. This law added the 10th Schedule to the Indian Constitution, making changes to Articles 102 and 191 by introducing provisions for disqualification due to defection. Over the years, it has played a crucial role in stabilizing governments, but challenges like bias in decision-making, misuse of mergers, and limitations on dissent have raised concerns about its effectiveness.

Provisions of the Anti-Defection Law in India

Who Decides on Defection?

The Speaker or Chairperson of the legislature decides on disqualification based on a petition filed by any other member of the House.

Disqualification Criteria Under the 10th Schedule

1. Members of Political Parties

• If a legislator voluntarily resigns from the party.
  
  
• If a legislator disobeys the party whip while voting in the legislature.
  
  

2. Independent Members

• If an independent member joins a political party after being elected.
  
  

3. Nominated Members

• If a nominated member joins a political party after six months from being elected.
  
  

Exceptions Under the Anti-Defection Law in India

• Prior Permission: A member is not disqualified if the party condones the defection within 15 days.
  
  
• Party Mergers: If two-thirds of a party’s members agree to merge with another party, defection is not applicable.
  
  

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Anti-Defection Law in India

Advantages of the Anti-Defection Law in India

1. Ensuring Political Stability

• Prevents frequent party switching, which can destabilize governments.
  
  
• Example: Helped stabilize the 2019 Maharashtra government during coalition shifts.
  
  

2. Reducing Corruption in Politics

• Prevents legislators from switching parties for personal gain.
  
  
• A 2023 Election Commission report showed a 15% decline in corruption related to defections after the 91st Amendment Act, 2003.
  
  

3. Supporting Democratic and Political Realignment

• Allows mergers of political parties without disqualifying members.
  
  

Challenges and Criticism of the Anti-Defection Law in India

1. Restriction on Freedom of Dissent

• Legislators are forced to vote according to party instructions, limiting independent decision-making.
  
  
• Political analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues that the law silences dissenting voices in the name of party discipline.
  
  

2. Presiding Officer’s Bias

• Speakers or Chairpersons often belong to ruling parties, leading to delays and biased decisions.
  
  

3. Lack of Time Limit for Decisions

• The law does not specify a timeframe within which the presiding officer must make a decision, leading to delays.
  
  

4. Misuse of the Law for Political Gains

• Loopholes like mergers allow governments to circumvent anti-defection provisions.
  
  
• Example: Shiv Sena and NCP split in Maharashtra exploited these provisions.
  
  

Reforms Suggested by Various Committees

1. Law Commission (170th Report)

• Recommended removing the provisions related to splits and mergers.
  
  
• Suggested treating pre-poll alliances as political parties under the law.
  
  

2. Election Commission of India

• Suggested that President/Governor should decide disqualification cases based on the Election Commission’s advice.
  
  

3. Constitution Review Commission (2002)

• Recommended barring defectors from holding public office or receiving any party benefits.
  
  

4. Dinesh Goswami Committee (2003)

• Recommended removing terms like splits and mergers from the 10th Schedule.
  
  
• Proposed a clear definition of “voluntarily giving up membership” and “political party”.
  
  
• Advocated for time-bound decisions on defection cases.
  
  

Important Supreme Court Cases on Anti-Defection Law

1. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & Others (1992)

• Upheld the validity of the 10th Schedule.
  
  
• Ruled that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review.
  
  

2. Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1971)

• Established tests for determining a valid split in a political party.
  
  

3. Shri Rajesh Verma v. Shri Mohammad Shahid Akhlaque

• Held that publicly opposing one’s original party and supporting another party is equivalent to resignation.
  
  

Way Forward: Strengthening the Anti-Defection Law in India

1. Time-Bound Decisions on Disqualification

• Set a strict time limit for presiding officers to decide on defection cases.
  
  

2. Neutral Authority for Decision-Making

• Transfer the power of deciding defection cases from the Speaker to a neutral authority like the Election Commission.
  
  

3. Strengthening Internal Party Democracy

• Ensure legislators have more say in decision-making rather than following a strict party whip.
  
  

4. Clearer Definitions and Amendments

• Define terms like "voluntarily giving up membership" to prevent misinterpretation.
  
  
• Amend the law to prevent its misuse for political gains.
  
  

Conclusion

The Anti-Defection Law in India, under the 10th Schedule, has played a crucial role in preventing political instability and corruption. However, loopholes in the law have led to its misuse, limiting freedom of dissent and allowing strategic party mergers. Strengthening the decision-making process, ensuring impartiality, and implementing judicial recommendations can make the law more effective and transparent.