Anti-Defection Law

Indian Polity

Paper- 3 unit-1 Anti-Defection Law

Why in News:-

Recent Court Judgments (Regarding Speaker’s Rights):

In recent years, particularly in April 2025, the Supreme Court made important observations about the powers and role of the Speaker under the Anti-Defection Law. These observations came while hearing petitions filed by the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS), which accused the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly of delaying defection cases.

 

What is Anti-Defection Law?

The Anti-Defection Law was enacted in India in 1985 under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which was added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment. Its main objective is to prevent the tendency of MPs and MLAs to leave their party and join another party or vote against the party, so that political stability is maintained.

 

Key Points:-

  1. Grounds for defection:
  • If an MP/MLA resigns from his original party.
  • If he votes against the party’s instructions or remains absent from voting.
  • If he voluntarily gives up his party membership.
  • If an independent MLA/MP joins a party.
  1. Exceptions:
  • If two-thirds of the members of a party decide to merge with another party.
  • If an MLA/MP breaks away from his party and forms a new party along with two-thirds members of their party.

 

Powers of the Speaker: The Speaker (Chairman of Lok Sabha or Assembly) has the following powers under the anti-defection law:

  1. Decision on disqualification:
  • The Speaker has the power to decide whether an MP/MLA is disqualified on the grounds of defection.
  • His decision is considered final, but it can be challenged in court.
  1. Expectation of impartiality:

 

  • The speaker has to decide impartially and neutrally.
  1. Procedure followed:
  • The speaker has to investigate a complaint, in which it is mandatory to give the concerned member an opportunity to present his side.

 

Key points

  1. Power of court:
  • A bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai of the Supreme Court said that if the speaker makes “indefinite delay” in deciding the defection petitions, then court is not “powerless”.
  • The court clarified that it can use Article 142 (extra ordinary powers) of the Constitution to ensure that the speaker decides within a reasonable time.
  1. Reasonable time frame:
  • The court considered the question whether constitutional courts can direct the speaker to decide on defection petitions within a certain time frame (for example, 3 months).
  • In the case of Keshav Meghchandra Singh vs Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Supreme Court had suggested that the Speaker should decide on anti-defection petitions within three months.
  1. Impartiality and accountability:
  • The Court emphasised that the Speaker, who functions like a quasi-judicial tribunal under the anti-defection law, should act in an impartial and transparent manner.
  • If the Speaker’s action is found to be mala fides or perversity, then his decision will be subject to judicial review.
  1. The problem of delay in decision:
  • In the case of Telangana, the petitions said that the Speaker had not issued notices on anti-defection petitions filed in March-April 2024 even till January 2025, which the Court considered as “undue delay”.
  • The court said that such delays affect the purpose of the Tenth Schedule, which is to ensure political stability.
  1. Suggestion of independent tribunal:
  • The Supreme Court has previously suggested, in cases such as Kihoto Holohan vs Zachillhu (1992) and Keshav Meghchandra Singh (2020), that an independent tribunal or the Election Commission could be given the responsibility of deciding defection cases instead of the Speaker, so as to reduce allegations of bias.

 

Source– newspaper editorial

FOLLOW US