Last week’s imbroglio at the Maharashtra Legislature was nothing unique. It was another episode on the suspense thriller, family-drama being played out at the highest pedestals of the State Legislature, reducing their electorate to a bunch of helpless button-pressers, their mandates being merrily used the way a small group of politicians would be delighted to! But my story this week is not on Maharashtra or its recent defections, I wish to revisit the Anti-Defection law as laid down in the Tenth Schedule to our Constitution. But before I do that, I would rather like to spend some time on Maharashtra first and examine the latest gem of the defections-story.
Just to recapitulate, back in 2019, the two ruling parties, traditional partners fought against each other at the hustings, but each individually couldn’t muster a majority. So, the ambitious young leader from the lesser-partners staked his claim for the top-chair, contending it was his turn now. The greater-partner however would have none of it and finally a non-compatible group from the opposition formed the Government.
Now the uniqueness here was that the Government had no people’s mandate right from the start, since voters had voted each of them by defeating the other. But who cares, our democracy is perennially evolving and I’m sure Charles Darwin would have smiled in silence today remembering his prophesy, ‘One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die’ (in his book ‘Origin of Species’). So, in less than three years one of the MLAs from the ruling party, with the support of 40 of 55 MLAs walked over to support the opposition and form another government – but the first point was this new formation would not ‘merge’ themselves with the greater partner, now in opposition which the law would have wanted it to and the second was that the outgoing Chief Minister had already resigned on his own will. There was no other way out than to call the defectors to rule.
Now comes the third twist to the tale. Another 35 MLAs of the opposition walk over to the now new ruling side. They don’t want to merge their group in the now ruling party. So, they call themselves the ‘original’ party and claim that the party president is the same old party president, who himself denies he is. Now, nobody is wiser which group is the ‘real’ party. The new group meanwhile is ensconced comfy in power enjoying all of the loaves of office! What a mockery of the electoral process, of our 300 Founding Fathers who toiled hard for three years in 114 sessions to give us this Constitution!
Now what does the Tenth Schedule (enacted in 1985) state? You are disqualified if you disobey the party whip in the Assembly or in the Parliament (as applicable) or that you voluntarily quit the party on whose ticket you were voted. The party may expel you and ask the Speaker to dismiss you from the House. The Speaker is the decision making authority. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarians in 1985, overlooked the fact that the Speaker himself is a member of the ruling political party (most often an active one at that), and party-bias could naturally sit in conflict with these juridical responsibilities. Can’t expect a GV Mavlankar or a Somnath Chatterjee everywhere.
Second, there was no time limits fixed for the Speaker to decide on his ruling or decision, he can choose any politically opportune time or just sit on it for months and years. I remember, around 2017 in Manipur, the single largest party needed just one legislator for it to form the Government. It garnered an opposition MLA. The MLA was expelled by the opposition party. The Speaker with his profound loyalty to his political masters decided to just sit on the subject for 3 years. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled against that MLA (who by the way, was now a Minister). In Bengal the story is funnier. There are at least three MPs and six MLAs who nobody seems to know exactly which party they belong to. The Speaker and his political masters claim they still belong to the old party they were voted on, whereas the parliamentarians and the legislators themselves, claim they are now in the new party they defected to! But everybody agrees they are still MPs and MLAs fit to enjoy all remunerations, allowances, bountiful concessions, pensions and generous entitlements on tax payers’ account. Similarly, in Telengana 2014, the ruling party garnered 26 opposition MLAs, the speaker sat on his ruling for disqualification right upto the end of the term of the Assembly. What a sham played out in broad day-light!
Let’s now take a look at the international situation. In the UK and the US and in most Western European Democracies, a legislator is free to vote for or against a government motion as long as it is not a “no-confidence motion”. In certain countries in Asia, to trigger disqualification it has to be a money bill or a no-confidence motion.
My Take: I think members should be free to vote for or against any bill other than only on a no-confidence motion. All members who vote against the Government in a no-confidence motion in my view, would be liable for dismissal from the house adjudicated by the Chief Election Commissioner within one month of the voting.
And before I part, these changes are those changes which no political party would easily like to do, going as it does against their own political interest, for this we look upon our institutions to help in positive evolution of our great Democracy.
(Binayak Datta is a finance professional)
