Events & Issues
New Delhi, 29 September 2017
Dodging
Anti-Defection Law
CROOKED
PARTY POLITICS
By Dr. S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Tamil Nadu today
presents the most confused Party politics and utterly complicated political
situations challenging law and conventions. Changes happen on an hourly basis making it
difficult for people to keep track of them and it is a puzzle for
decision-making authorities to handle them from an impartial and legally sound
stand.
Pertinently, political
developments since former Chief Minister Jayalalitha demise are as much a
portrayal of the extent of manipulations possible in our political system and functioning as the
capabilities and readiness of institutions and functionaries to make the utmost
use of situations. This result is the emergence of several political lessons
worth learning.
Events reached an important stage when 18
MLAs of ruling Party AIADMK were disqualified by the Speaker under Schedule 10
of the Constitution. They had submitted
separate letters personally to the Tamil Nadu Governor withdrawing support to
the Chief Minister. Interestingly, they
seemed to have carefully distinguished their Party affiliation, support to the Government and
support to the incumbent Chief
Minister.
The disqualified legislators filed a petition
in the Madras High Court against what they termed as “illegal” disqualification
and urged the Court to quash the Speaker’s order. The Court extended the stay of
a floor test from 20 September till 4 October to determine a majority in the
Assembly but refused to stay the disqualification of the 18 MLAs.
This interim order pending final disposal of
the case restrains the Election Commission from declaring the 18 seats as vacant or issuing
notification for conducting election to these seats.
Undeniably, the Court order partially favours
all the litigants and interested parties in this case and concerns the very
survival of the State Government and the Legislative Assembly. The disqualified MLAs neither got nor were denied
all that they wanted. Consequently, the order bestowed them with hope and
despair while they await the final verdict.
The disqualified MLAs have got relief that
the court did not endorse their disqualification, however, not from continuing suspense
about the future of their tenure. The case manifests yet another type of Party politics which is moving farther and
farther away from public interest, popular opinion and political ethics.
Undoubtedly, the 32 years old Anti-Defection
Law incorporated in the Constitution by the 52nd amendment once welcomed as
a deterrent for “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” politics” has now entered a new phase thanks to
professional politicians refining its use and abuse in State politics.
Veritably crooked politics in every instance
of defection brings forth new possibilities of dodging the Anti-Defection Law along-with
fresh interpretations of situations warranting the application of the law!
Notably, the disqualification of 18 MLAs has reduced
the strength of the Assembly from 233 to 215 and lowered the majority line from
117 to 108. This can help the State
Government’s survival in the event of a confidence or no-confidence motion.
Therefore, a test at this point defeats the
purpose of the defectors and disappoints the principal Opposition Party DMK
which is not far from a majority. While the Court’s final verdict is awaited anxiously
by the political actors the nation would like to know how the judiciary can
save the country from unethical politics.
Under the Anti-Defection Schedule, a member
of Parliament or legislature may be
disqualified for voluntary
resignation from his Party
or for disobeying the directives of his
Party’s leadership on a vote, plainly votes against the Party whip.
Importantly, this Schedule has been
interpreted by courts on several occasions with reference to State Assemblies
as circumstances surrounding the behaviour
of MLAs are different. Each time different issues arise requiring
judicial clarification and decision.
Thus, voluntary resignation has been
explained to include publicly opposing the Party of which one is a member or
stating support to another Party. In the
present case, the Speaker contended that the actions of the dissident
MLAs showed that they were “making efforts to align themselves with a Party
other than the Party from which they were elected”.
Citing their stay away from the State at a
resort in Karnataka, the Speaker contended that it clearly showed that they had
distanced themselves from the Party and were in the control of persons outside
the Party.
Hence, the details are not simple and need
reading into behaviour patterns and activities of dissident members to
determine violation of allegiance to their Party and disobedience to the Party
mandate.
True, inner Party democracy is a valuable
concept for promoting a democratic Government.
It is generally acknowledged that when issues are discussed within Parties,
different opinions and views might be expressed, but once decisions are taken
they become Party decisions to which all adhere. This applies to election of
leaders also and is an internal Party issue to be discussed and settled within.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the
Anti-Defection Amendment states: “The evil of political defections has been a
matter of political concern. If it is not combated it is likely to undermine
the very foundations of our democracy and the principles that sustain it”.
However, the Amendment cannot prevent Party manipulations and groupism
by disgruntled members for
leadership without leaving or splitting their Party
or openly defying its dictates.
Therefore, endless litigations and uncertainty in Government have arisen
in many States involving the Anti-Defection Law.
Indeed, growing controversies often shift
focus to identifying the real Party which means taking the fight down to Party
workers at all levels. In effect, the issue can only confuse ordinary voters.
The Schedule also allows two-third members of
a Parliamentary or legislative Party to merge
with another Party or form a new one. As a result the Anti-Defection Law
has thus encouraged the politics of arithmetical victory in more than one way
--- some trying to “construct” and others to “deconstruct” a majority by playing
the number game whereby every member is an invaluable asset for the Party.
Personalities play a major role in this
number game. It is a common feature in
all States ---- Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand
etc. Loyalty is to a person and not policies, be it for constructing or dismantling
a majority. Disqualifying dissident members has become an easy course for
proving legislative majority in many States.
Under the Anti-Defection Law the Speaker is
the final authority to decide on disqualification. For a Speaker elevated to the post with the
support of his Party often after long years of service to fully tear away from
his Party roots and act as a neutral judge is not difficult to imagine. This is a difficult though not impossible
task.
The Supreme Court in a recent order stated
that the ruling of the Speaker’s
decision is not final, but subject to judicial review. In some cases as in
Karnataka in 2011, disqualification of dissident members by the Speaker was
annulled by the Court.
In the ultimate, the Anti-Defection law has
been made for protecting proprieties of politics and personal conduct. Clearly
our polity has to fulfill the nation’s expectations. ----- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|