Defection in the Indian Political System

Chapter 1: Understanding the problem of defection in Indian Politics.

Democracy and Free and Fair Election are inseparable twins. There is almost an inseparable umbilical cord joining them. In a democracy the little man - voter, has overwhelming importance and cannot be hijacked from the course of free and fair elections. His freedom to elect a candidate of his choice is the foundation of a free and fair election. But after getting elected, if the elected candidate deviates from the course of fairness and purity and becomes a Purchasable Commodity he not only betrays the electorate, but also pollutes the pure stream of democracy.1 Political leaders, after elections, tend to see politics only in terms of short-term interests and, therefore, unconstrained by party ideology change sides quite often, resulting in a new kind of political culture. The frequent changing of coalition partners and the formation of new alliances have thus resulted in destroying the moral fabric of the society. These men and women who get into positions of power and authority transgress the limits that underlie the ethics of representation, which is very important in the functioning of representative democracy.2

Definitions:
Defection implies an elected representative leaves his/her affiliated party and joins another party. It played an important role in the formation and fall of governments. It is now banned by the Anti-Defection law.3 In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state in exchange for allegiance to another, in a way which is considered illegitimate by the first state. More broadly,

Available on: http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/constitutional-design-of-disqualification-ofmembers.php(Last visited on October 20, 2013). 2 B. Venkatesh Kumar, Anti-Defection Law: Welcome Reforms,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 19 (May 10-16, 2003), pp. 1837-1838. 3 Available on: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_meant_by_defection_in_politics(Last visited on October 19, 2013).

it involves abandoning a person, cause or doctrine to which one is bound by some tie, as of allegiance or duty.4 The Indian Parliament and its various State Assemblies have, in the past 38 years, witnessed many changes of allegiance, defections and dal badal' as it is colloquially known. There have been splits and formations of breakaway groups from time to time. In the mid-sixties, the country saw the introduction of a new jargon of Aaya Ram Gaya Ram in political parlance. The introduction of this jargon was heralded by a certain Haryana state legislator Gaya Lal, who changed parties three times in the course of one day. During this period, there were rampant defections by members of India's parliament and state assemblies in order to save or bring down governments. This, in turn, led to discourse amongst different political groups and parties in order to prevent this undesirable trend in politics. Opposition leaders expounded the proposal that Anti-Defective Legislative measures were imperative in putting an end to this quandary. However, it was under the government of Rajiv Gandhi that the promulgation of the Tenth Schedule introduced by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act 1985 occurred which made provisions as to the disqualification of members on the grounds of defection. The amendment echoed the abysmal political development in its Statement of Objects and Reasons stating: The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it. 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.5

Meaning of Political Defection

Literally the word defection denotes abandonment desertion or running away from a party cause, religion etc. In politics, its ramificsion include many situation like crossing or changing of floors. The Politics of musical chairs, the Politics of opportunism change of party or group shifting of loyalty or all evince from one party or grow up to another. Repudiation of the label under which a legislator successfully control his election having a party and then
4 5

Available on: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defection(Last visited on October 20, 2013). Supra note 3.

coming back to its fold etc. unless otherwise stated the term defection should be understood to mean any change of political label and should inclined all classes such as (i) that of leaving a particular party after being elected as a legislator on its ticket and joining another party (ii) (iii) of resigning from the party but remaining independent thereafter of Joining a particular political party being elected as an independent6

In short thus we can sum up that political defection covers almost every case in which the legislator has changed his party label and Joined either government or the opposition with the motive of some sort of personal gain that may be in form name fame, office or even inner satisfaction of throwing out of office those who were opposed to him or a go office those who were opposed to him or a group of persons.

Causes of Defections:
There are several causes which made defections among political parties, legislators and members of parliament. There are several motivations which are responsible for defections. Politics has become part and parcel of day to day life of common man more specifically life patterns of politicians. There has become a class of politicians. Politicians of all parties join together to form their own separate class. Politics has become a lucrative business for them. There is profit and loss in business while there are only profit in politics for certain politicians. They are never put to loss, because they adopt defection politics. They earn and earn at the cost of their supporters and general public. They made partners in this profitable Business. There are in numerable causes for defection. The causes changes in day to day practice however some causes can be laid down as under. 1- Change in political ideology causes defection (change of party) 2- Cast factor is dominant in defection. 3- Defectors fall prey to pressures of several pressure groups. 4- Monetary consideration is a dominant-cause for defection. 5- Temptation of power also is a cause for defection.
6

Subhash C. Kashyap, The Politics of Defection: The Changing Contours of the Political Power Structure in State Politics in India, Asian Survey, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Mar., 1970),PP 11-12.

6- Offer of posts is an important cause for defection. 7- Protection from facing court cases of enquires against opponents causes defection. 8- When personal become dominant in a party the other members defect to oppose the leaders domination. 9- Corruption also is a big cause for defection. 10- When political party become weak or allow opportunists These are major causes of defection.7

Impact of defections on Indian politics:

There are various causes of political defection. Before1967 there was no serious problem of political defections but after the fourth general elections in 1967 the problem become acute and thus many state governments survived and thrown out of power because of defections. During this period of 3 years as many as 323 independent legislators defected in the state legislatures.8 The parliament was also not fres defections. During this period 148 party and four independent members here also defected9 defection led to political instability the emergence of unstable coalitions in the states, the formation of minority governments in the states, delays in decision making, increase in political corruption and devaluation of moral values etc.10

7 8

Hans Raj, Contemparary Problems of Indian polity. P. 15 Kyshap S.C.,op.cit., p. 37. 9 Ministry affairs Report 1968 10 Kazi Z. B., DEFECTION POLITICS IN INDIA, International Referred Research Journal, April, 2011. ISSN0974-2832 RNI-RAJBIL 2009/29954.VoL.III *ISSUE-27

Chapter 2: The anti-defection law made by India to curb the problem of defection.
Law was framed in 1985 with the specific intent of combating the evil of political defections, over the years several unanticipated consequences have come to the fore. The need for an antidefection law was first felt in the late 1960s. Of the 16 States that went to polls in 1967, Congress lost majority in eight and failed to form the government in seven. Thus began the era of common minimum programmes and coalition governments. This was accompanied with another development the phenomenon of large scale political migrations. Within a brief span of 4 years (1967-71), there were 142 defections in Parliament and 1969 defections in State Assemblies across the country. Thirty-two governments collapsed and 212 defectors were rewarded with ministerial positions.11 Haryana was the first State where a Congress ministry was toppled. The Bhagwat Dayal ministry was defeated in the Assembly when its nominee for speakership lost out to another candidate. Congress dissidents defected to form a new party called the Haryana Congress, entered into an alliance with the opposition and formed a new government under the Chief Ministership of Rao Birender Singh (also a Congress defector). Haryana thus became the first State to reward a defector with Chief Ministership. Another Haryana legislator, Gaya Lal, defected thrice within a fortnight. The now well know terms Aya Ram and Gaya Ram that are often used to describe political turncoats owe inspiration to him. The anti-defection law was passed in 1985. This law amended the Constitution and added the Tenth Schedule to the same. This anti-defection law has regulated parliamentary behavior for over 25 years now. Though it has the advantage of providing stability to governments and ensuring loyalty to party manifestos, it reduces the accountability of the government to Parliament and curbs dissent against party policies. This brings us to the question Is the antidefection law indispensable? Is defection peculiar to India? If not, how do other countries handle similar situations?

11

Available on: http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?p=778(Last visited on October 20, 2013).

It is interesting to note that many advanced democracies face similar problems but havent enacted any such laws to regulate legislators. Prominent cases in UK politics include the defection of Ramsay Macdonald, the first Labour Prime Minister, in 1931. He defected from his party following disagreements on policy responses to the economic crisis. Neither Macdonald nor any of his three cabinet colleagues who defected with him resigned their seats in the House of Commons to seek a fresh mandate. Australian Parliament too has had its share of defections. Legislators have often shifted loyalties and governments have been formed and toppled in quick succession. In the US too, Congressmen often vote against the party programme on important issues without actually defecting from the party. India might have its peculiar circumstances that merit different policies. But, the very fact that some other democracies can function without such a law should get us thinking.12 What are the grounds for disqualification under the Anti-Defection Laws under Articles 102 (2) and 191 (2) of Indian Constitution? The Tenth Schedule provides in paragraph 2 (1) that a Member of Parliament or state legislature belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for continuing as such member if he 1. has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or 2. votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person, or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within 15 days from the date of such voting or, leads to the restraint of party debate and dissent. As a pre-condition for his disqualification, his abstention from voting should not be condoned by his party or the authorised person within 15 days of such incident.13

12

Ibid.

The opponents of this legislative move argued along the lines that the fundamental feature of an open and democratic society lies in the basic freedoms of association, opinion and expression. The very right to vote is implicit in this and if these votes cannot be altered by dispute or dissent, then the forum of the Parliament lies fallow. Following in the spirit of the aforementioned argument, The Supreme Court, in Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand14, went on to add The provisions are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections Paragraph 3, in the original Schedule, made an exception in the case of defection of members on the ground of split in the party to which they belonged. A split occurs when a member or group of members of a party which are not less than one-third of the total members of such party in the lower House split, form a separate group and give up membership of such party. In a case such as this, the disqualification from the membership of the House vide paragraph 2 (1) does not apply. The Supreme Court justified the legislature's position, holding that in case of split in a party, the presumption is that it is caused by dissent which is to be valued while the defection is motivated by personal gain which is an evil to be prevented. However, in truth, these splits became synonymous with the notion of personal ambitions. They occurred more because members in languishing parties wanted Ministership or new parties, or if they anticipated lack of support in the next election. In some instances, the ruling party had marginal majority and other parties hoped to form government if their number swells through defection. This provision was also criticised on the ground that it allowed bulk defections while declaring individual defections as illegal. Essentially the intended effect of paragraph 3 became - don't leave in single files, leave in rows. Where smaller parties were concerned, breaking away with the support of one-third of the members of the party was not difficult and defections remained unchecked. The case of Ravi Naik v Union of India15 drives a classic example of defection in a smaller party. As a consequence, demands were made from various quarters for strengthening the anti-defection law so as to achieve the desired result,

13 14

Available on: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/antidefection-law/339606/(Last visited on October 21, 2013). (1998) 7 SCC 517. 15 1994 AIR 1558, 1994 SCR (1) 754.

leading to an amendment by the Constitution (Ninety First Amendment) Act 2003 to omit paragraph 3 altogether from the Tenth Schedule. The final provision in this legislation gives the Speakers of the House to make rules for giving effect to any provision contained in the Schedule. In pursuance of this power, the states of Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala, Karnataka and others and also the Houses of the Parliament, both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have made rules in this regard. These Houses would be bound by the rules contained in the Schedules as also the ones that have been enacted specially for them.16 What were the loopholes? If we go deep into the impact of this law, it curbs the legislators freedom of opposing the wrong policies, bad leaders and anti-people bills proposed by the High Command in arbitrary and undemocratic manner. This law has given additional dictatorial power to the political party to keep the flock together for an entire term.17 As per the 1985 Act, a 'defection' by one-third of the elected members of a political party was considered a 'merger'. Such defections were not actionable against. The Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms, the Law Commission in its report on "Reform of Electoral Laws" and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) all recommended the deletion of the Tenth Schedule provision regarding exemption from disqualification in case of a split. Finally the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, changed this. So now at least two-thirds of the members of a party have to be in favour of a "merger" for it to have validity in the eyes of the law. "The merger of the original political party or a member of a House shall be deemed to have taken place if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger," states the Tenth Schedule.18

16 17

Supra note 3. Supra note 1. 18 Supra note 15.

Under which circumstances is a split in a party not considered a 'defection'? A split in a political party will not be considered a defection if an entire political party merges with another; if a new political party is formed by some of the elected members of one party; if he or she or other members of the party have not accepted the merger between the two parties and opted to function as a separate group from the time of such a merger. What are the powers of a party whip under the Constitution in case of a defection? The whip upholds the party directives in the House as the authorised voice of the party. On defection of elected members of his party, the whip can send a petition on the alleged defection to the Chairman or the Speaker of a House for their disqualification. He can also expel the members from the party. But this does not necessarily mean that the members so expelled lose their seats in the House. They continue to hang on to their seats as long as the Chairman or the Speaker of a House gives a final decision on their disqualification from the House after a proper enquiry on the basis of the petition filed by the party whip. What are the options before a disqualified elected member? The members so disqualified can stand for elections from any political party for a seat in the same House. But he naturally cannot get a ticket from his former party. Who is the deciding authority? The decisions on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection are referred to the Chairman or the Speaker of such House, and his decision is final. All proceedings in relation to any question on disqualification of a member of a House under this Schedule are deemed to be proceedings in Parliament or in the Legislature of a state. No court has any jurisdiction. 19

19

Available on: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/antidefection-law/339606/(Last visited on October 21, 2013).

Recent Orders on Disqualification by the Speaker for Defection: Shri Rajeev Ranjan Singh Lalan vs. Dr. P.P. Koya, JD(U), (January 9, 2009). Dr. Koya defied a party whip requiring him to be present in the House and vote against the Motion of Confidence for the government. He claimed he was too ill to be present in the House. The Speaker concluded that Dr. Koya abstained from voting by remaining absent, and the evidence of the illness is not sufficient to conclude that he was so ill that he could not be present in the House. Shri Prabhunath Singh vs. Shri Ram Swaroop Prasad, JD(U), (October 3, 2008). Shri Prasad defied a party whip requiring him to be present in the House. In his defence, he denied that

10

any whip was issued or served. The Speaker held that in view of the fact that there is evidence to show that the whip had been delivered to Shri Prasads house, and had been duly received, it cannot be said that Shri Prasad had no knowledge of the whip. Shri Avtar Singh Bhadana vs. Shri Kuldeep Singh, Indian National Congress, (September 10, 2008). The INC alleged that Shri Bishnoi often dissented from, and criticized the Congress government publicly, and had demanded the dismissal of the government in Haryana. The Speaker held that a person getting elected as a candidate of a political party also gets elected because of the programs of the party. If the person leaves the party, he should go back before the electorate. Shri Rajesh Verma vs. Shri Mohammad Shahid Akhlaque, BSP, (January 27, 2008). It was alleged that Shri Akhlaque joined the Samajwadi Party in a public meeting. It was alleged that at this meeting, Shri Akhlaque had said that at heart, he had always been a member of the SP. The Speaker reasoned that there is no reason why news clippings and stories in the media would be untruthful. The Speaker therefore held Shri Akhlaque disqualified for having voluntarily given up membership of the BSP. The most recent case relating to anti-defection is from the Karnataka State Legislature where B.J.P. is the ruling party and 14 members of B.J.P. and 5 independent members sent a letter of discontent against the Chief Minister. A complaint was made against them and speaker disqualified them from their membership. The case is pending in the S.C.20

20

Supra note 1.

11

Chapter 3: Suggestions to overcome from the problem of the defection.

Actually, any reforms in the working of the anti-defection law would be meaning-less without a thorough analysis of the composition, structure, functioning and role perception of political parties in present day politics. Parties as they are and as they operate today hardly deserve any protection against defection by their members. If parties are not based on any principles, ideologies or programmes and if they are not democratically run, there can be no question of any principles being involved in either defecting from or staying with a party. In the same vein, just to ensure that the party machinery does not misuse this power either, what constitutes defection should be re-defined. At the moment any dis-agreement with the party organisation and a vote against party directive on any issue can subject a legislator to disqualification under the 10th Schedule. This is not what should happen. The whip should only be applicable for any matter where the life of the government is in danger and not to all voting as at present under the 10th Schedule. In other words except on voting concerning a finance bill, or confidence motion or no-confidence motion, whip should not apply from the point of view of anti-defection law. The question of defection will then only arise when a legislator actually changes allegiance or defies party directives on critical issues of affecting its life. The anti-defection law has, in fact, several serious lacunae, which threaten to vitiate the democratic fabric of our polity. This recent decision of the government to curb the menace of defection and bring about an amendment to curb the size of the ministry, though belated and piecemeal, augurs well for the functioning of Indian democracy. However, more needs to be done. Political parties across the board need to move beyond partisan politics and make a conscious effort to make electoral politics vibrant and democratic.21 To sum up, the reasons for the present-day phenomenon of large-scale political defections are: (1) the history and nature of political parties in India, and particularly the Indian National Congress; (2) the aging leadership, bossism and the growth of establishments with vested interests in the status quo in almost all the parties; (3) the lack of ideological orientation and polarization among the parties; (4) the low level of popular involvement in the membership, objects and activities of political parties and the virtual indifference of the people to acts of defection by their representatives; (5) infighting and factionalism in the parties which lead to group- defections when, for example, party tickets are denied to members of a dissident
21

B. Venkatesh Kumar, loc.cit.

12

faction; (6) the marginal and unstable majorities in state legislative assemblies after the 1967 Elections and the prospect that non-Congress parties would be in position to capture power; (7) conflict of personalities and temperamental incompatibilities between a legislator and his party bosses; (8) the temptations of office-money, status and the like-or denial of the same; (9) the tremendous gap between the emoluments, status and other benefits attached to the office of a minister and that of an ordinary legislator; (10) the existence of powerful lobbies and pressure groups that command loyalties that are far more intense than loyalties to political parties; and (11) the unwillingness of the Congress party to share power and enter into workable coalitions with like-minded parties. To tackle the problem of large-scale unprincipled defections, several suggestions have been made by scholars, academic bodies and the All-Party Chavan Committee on Defections. These include: (1) the evolution of a code of conduct by the political parties; (2) greater emphasis by the parties on the choice of candidates for election; (3) using the pressure of public opinion; (4) granting the chief ministers the power to dissolve the legislature; (5) elimination of independents; (6) debarring defectors from appointment as ministers; (7) disqualifying defectors from membership in the legislature and/or contesting elections, (8) recognition or registration of parties and list system of voting, (9) provision for recall, (10) limiting the size of ministries. However, as we have shown elsewhere, most of these suggestions would neither be feasible legally and constitutionally nor acceptable politically. And, even if they were otherwise acceptable, they would have only a minimal impact due to the inbuilt resistance of the parliamentary system as it operates in the context of the Indian political culture.22 In order to cater to the needs of political stability consistent with the country's democratic ethos, some rethinking on the operation of India's Constitution may be necessary. What is required is merely a reinterpretation and a desire to work it anew.23 In the ultimate analysis, however, it is for the people to assert themselves. Ideals of freedom and democracy given to them by the people of India require constant vigilance, en- lightened public opinion and a competent leadership endowed with integrity and an understanding of the sophisticated

22 23

S. C. Kashyap, op.cit., p. 195-208. For a full discussion of this suggestion, see Subhash C. Kashyap, "On a Presidential System for India-Some Random Thoughts and Considerations," Journal of Political Studies, 1:1.

13

operational mechanics of the system. It is not generally realized that any worthwhile democratic experiment in order to be successful needs a good deal of investment in political education. It is unfortunate that little attention is being paid to this aspect of politics and an organized effort in this direction is still to be made. The political parties which should have undertaken this task have proven to be largely indifferent.24

24

The Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies has launched several schemes, viz., (1) the Parliamentary Fellowship Program started early in 1967 and largely patterned on the U.S. Congressional Fellowship Program of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.; (2) the Orientation Seminars for Legislators started in 1968 on the model of the Seminars for Freshmen Congressmen run by APSA and the Brookings Institute; and (3) Moot Parliaments in universities and colleges initiated in 1968.

14

CONCLUSION
The role of politics under the constitutional set up in India has undergone many chapters. The concept of party loyalty has weakened and real politics' has become a spate of splits and defections in pursuit of selfish gains. Most political activity that takes place in India today transpires within the Tenth Schedule. It may be called a defective manual, implicit in the art of compliance. It has ceased to matter what an MP as an individual thinks, the party leadership's requirements are of prime concern during a vote. The anti-defection law renders a key pillar of our version of democracy futile - one must either buy the whole package offered by a political leader, or dissent in full and split away to avoid the risk of being disqualified. This has had several implications including disintegration of parties due to reluctance towards involvement in a deeper discourse and the lack of tolerance to coexistence with dissent. This has rendered the independents as the only legislators who can afford to vote without the threat of disqualification. The most crucial aspect that needs to be elevated in the Tenth Schedule is the right of an individual Member of Parliament to vote freely, without the risk of disqualification from the his or her party. Only then can a citizen of a democracy such as India vote for who he truly wants to hold accountable.25 Anti-defection law when it was passed, it aimed at bringing down the political defect but due to ever increasing political dishonesty and corruption this law never evolved properly and now a question have arose that whether achieving the goals of this law a reality or a myth? Politicians found loopholes in this law and used it for their own benefit. It is high time that a watchdog should be provided to our Parliament and there is a need for our constitutional pundits to revisit the issue to combat the menace of corruption and defection which has eroded the values of democracy.26

25 26

Supra note 3. Supra note 1.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books referred: 1. B. Venkatesh Kumar, Anti-Defection Law: Welcome Reforms,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 19 (May 10-16, 2003). 2. Hans Raj, Contemparary Problems of Indian polity. 3. Kazi Z. B., DEFECTION POLITICS IN INDIA, International Referred Research Journal, April, 2011.VoL.III, ISSUE-27. 4. Ministry affairs Report, 1968. 5. Subhash C. Kashyap, The Politics of Defection: The Changing Contours of the Political Power Structure in State Politics in India, Asian Survey, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Mar., 1970). 6. Subhash C. Kashyap, "On a Presidential System for India-Some Random Thoughts and Considerations," Journal of Political Studies, 1:1.

Websites Referred: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defection 2. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_meant_by_defection_in_politics. 3. http://www.dailynews.co.zw/articles/2013/09/21/defections-normal-in-politics 4. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/antidefection-law/339606/ 5. http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/constitutional-design-ofdisqualification-of-members.php 6. http://www.legalindia.in/anti-defection-law 7. http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1230.html 8. http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?p=778 9. http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Note%20on%20Anti-Defection.pdf

16