Has The Role Of Individual Elected Representatives Of Parliament (MPs) & State Assemblies (MLAs) Diminished Due To Anti Defection Law?
Anjani Kumar Singh, Dharm Samaj College Aligarh, Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University
Simran Singh, Xaviar Law School, XIM University, Bhubaneswar
Introduction
In the 1984 general elections, the Indian National Congress got landslide victory winning 404 seats out of 514 seats and a further 10 seats in the delayed elections in 1985. Late Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minister of India and till date it remains to his credit that the 1984 elections is the only time to date in which a party won more than 400 seats. Many say that to have a control on his party with humungous majority, Rajiv Gandhi brought the Anti-Defection Law in 1985, through the 52nd Amendment Act, putting Articles 102(2) and Article 191(2) in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Tenth schedule was a mechanism to ensure that 52nd Amendment was kept out of judiciary’s purview. The Bar of jurisdiction of courts is specifically mentioned at para 7 of Tenth schedule. It states, “Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, no court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member of a House under this schedule”. Nevertheless, the goal was to prevent the legislators from changing their political affiliations during their tenure in office. The presiding officer has the authority to disqualify a member on proven grounds of defection and it applies to both the Parliament and the state legislatures. Initially, the decision of the presiding officer was not subject to Judicial Review. The decision of the presiding officer who decides the legitimacy of grounds of disqualification of defection is subject to the Judicial Review since 1992 when the Supreme Court allowed appeals against the Presiding Officer's decision in the High Court and Supreme Court. But judicial intervention can only happen after the Presiding Officer gives his order.
