Written By: Falakdipti
Aayaa Ram Gayaa Ram (Ram has come, Ram has gone) is an
expression used commonly in Indian politics to refer to political
horse-trading, frequently turn coating and floor crossing. The term originated
when in 1967, when Gaya Lal, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, from Pataudi
Vidhan Sabha Constituency of Haryana. He won the election as an independent
candidate and joined the Indian National Congress (INC) and thereafter changed
his political allegiance thrice in a single day. Even after this incident, Gaya
Lal, a frequent floor-crosser frequently came switching parties and contested
elections under different parties such as the Akhil Bhartiya Arya Sabha in
1972, joined the Bhartiya Lok Dal under Chaudhary Charan Singh in 1974 and
became the source of the coining of the term Aayaa Ram Gayaa Ram.[i]
The Anti Defection Law of 1985 was passed to prevent
defections. It was included in the constitution under Rajiv Gandhi’s rule as
the tenth schedule of the Constitution of India.
It applies to both Parliament and state legislative,
and specifies the process for the Speaker of the house (presiding officer of
the legislation), to disqualify a member of the legislation, on the petition of
any member of the house.
The main intentions of the laws were:
1. Keep
political corruption in check.
2. Bring
stability in politics to strengthen democracy.
3. Ensure
that members of the legislation more responsible and loyal to their political
party.[ii]
The Chavan committee proposed that a member who
switches party affiliation for monetary gain or other kinds of greed, such as
an executive office pledge, should not only be excluded from parliament but
also barred from contesting elections for a defined period of time.
A change was proposed to the Tenth Schedule in 2003 to
make the current legislation more effective in dealing with regular defections.
The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Bill was proposed by a committee led
by Pranab Mukherjee, observing that the exemption provided by authorising a
break, granted in paragraph three of the Schedule, was being blatantly
violated, creating several splits in different political parties.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Fifty-Second Amendment (1985) to the Constitution explained the reasons for the
addition of this Schedule in the following words, "The evil of political
defections has become a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, the
very pillars of our society and the values which support it are likely to be
eroded. With this object, an assurance was given in the address by the
President to Parliament that the government intended to introduce in the
current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for
outlawing defection and fulfilling the above assurance.”
In Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu[iii],
a case that also analysed numerous other facets of this law, the nature of this
anti-defection legislation was discussed in depth. Here, speaking of the need
for an anti-defection statute, the court said the goal is to curb the evil of
political defections motivated by the lure of office or other similar
considerations that threaten our democracy's foundations." The solution
suggested disqualifying from continuing as a Member of the Assembly the members
of either the House of Parliament or the State Legislature who are considered
to have defected. Section 2 of the Tenth Schedule defines the conditions for
disqualification.
India is a great democracy and by the democratic
mandate, the representatives of the House and Legislative Assemblies serve the
citizens of their constituencies. Policy parties pan out the wicked tradition
of defection for personal and political benefit. It has now been profoundly
inculcated in the political system notwithstanding the bar on the defection to
attain the prime seat of the States or the Nation.
The Anti-Defection Bill must be checked by Parliament
and it is important to correct the loopholes. The Indian Constitution reads in
its preamble the Division of Power, but unlike the United States of America,
the absolute Separation of Power is not exercised in the country. Today,
Parliament and the Judiciary are in desperate need of the Anti-Defection
Legislation to come together and make changes as necessary and implement the
same to curb the common defection activity.
In the Constitution, the adoption of Schedule X aimed to enact a substantive statute that would attack the possibility of defection. Although the legislation has succeeded to a fair degree in this aspect, there were some ambiguities. The Land Courts have done a good job in clarifying the position by adapting the statute to relevant facts and situations. Nevertheless, very few common propositions that have a universal application have been set down. Thus, there seems to be considerable scope for judicial interpretation, one that may give further clarity on the law and may bring in a wider range of cases within the umbrella of this legislation.
Comments
Post a Comment