Paper Details

In the Anti defection law introduced in 10 th schedule of constitution Constitution in 1985, was a landmark measure aimed at addressing the growing issue of political instability caused by frequent party-switching among legislators. This law was designed to uphold the integrity of representative democracy by ensuring that elected representatives remain loyal to the party on whose ticket they were elected. In recent years, the law has helped prevent opportunistic deflections that could topple governments. Nonetheless, contrary to its purpose, the Anti-Defamation Law has been under widespread criticism for its unforeseen consequences, such as stifling intra-party dissent and overcontrol of party leadership over lawmakers. Although the law has effectively checked individual dissent, it has also raised worries about its effect on democratic deliberation and legislative self-rule. Critics argue that by requiring lawmakers to strictly follow the party line, the law inhibits the freedom of legislators to independently represent the interests of their constituents. The authorization of political parties to issue whips, which force members of legislatures to vote according to instructions, has been viewed as a tool that suppresses free thinking and authentic debate in legislatures. Furthermore, the law has been exploited by politicians through orchestrated defections and manufactured resignations, showcasing grave loopholes that require immediate amendment.

Defection Law, dealing with uncertainties and preventing the law from becoming a tool of political opportunism. Although the law was enacted to restrain opportunist defections, its application has frequently been tainted by partisan judgment and tardy verdicts. The Supreme Court and different High Courts, over the years, have shed light on different provisions of the law, trying to make it more effective and less prone to abuse. 6.1 Judicial Review of the Speaker's Decision One of the most contentious provisions of the Anti-Defection Law is the Speaker's role in determining disqualification cases. The law originally gave the Speaker a unilateral power to determine whether a legislator must be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. This provision created the apprehension of political bias since the Speaker is generally aligned with the ruling party. The courts have intervened in a number of cases to define that the decision of the Speaker is open to judicial review. The landmark case of Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) was a turning point in defining judicial control over the Speaker's discretion. According to the Supreme Court, although the Speaker's order is final and binding, it can be examined by the judiciary if there has been gross malafide intentions, contravention of constitutional provisions, or perverse orders. This judgement guaranteed that Speakers would not act arbitrarily or politically while pronouncing defection