In the rough and tumble of politics, defections mar democracy and cast a shadow on the constitutional morality of politicians, and often end up in courts. Can political will be mustered to stem the malaise?
By Sanjay Raman Sinha
Turncoats are a recurring phenomenon in the colourful melee of Indian politics. This time it has troubled Mallikarjun Kharge, president of the Indian National Congress. In a recent statement, Kharge decried the trend of defection among political leaders, a concern shared by others of different political hues.
The phenomenon of politicians switching allegiance from one party to another has long plagued the country’s democratic fabric, raising concerns about the stability of governance and the integrity of the elected representatives. The need for reforming the anti-defection law, which was conceived in 1985, has become increasingly apparent, as evidenced by a series of high-profile cases which have rocked governments and landed in courts.
Defection is the act of elected representatives switching parties and has been on since the inception of the anti-defection law. The law was enacted to curb political opportunism and promote stability by deterring elected members from abandoning the party they were elected under.
When the anti-defection bill was brought in Parliament, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said earnestly: “This Bill is only a first step towards cleaning up our political life and removing some of the defects. It cannot attempt or claim to do everything. But, as I said it is the starting point.”
However, despite its implementation, defections continue to occur, posing significant challenges to the democratic process. According to data published on the Lok Sabha website: “Out of roughly 542 cases in the entire two-decade period between the first and the fourth general elections, at least 438 defections occurred in these 12 months alone. Among Independents, 157 out of a total of 376 elected, joined various parties in this period.”
Defections continued till the law came in force, after which party switching became a complicated affair. Most of the cases landed in courts, highlighting the grey areas of the anti-defection law.
The infamous “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” slogan was coined against the background of continuous defections by legislators in the 1960s. In fact, the history of defections in India can be traced back to the days of Shyam Lai Nehru, a member of the Central Legislature, who changed his allegiance from the Congress party to the British side.
The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting and enforcing the anti-defection law and has delivered landmark judgments in this regard. One such ruling came in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and Others (1992), where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-defection law while emphasising the importance of preserving the integrity of political parties. In his dissenting opinion, Justice DY Chandrachud had highlighted the need for stringent enforcement of the law, stating: “Defection undermines the essence of democracy and erodes public confidence in the political process. It is imperative that we adopt a zero-tolerance approach towards this malaise.”
In subsequent cases such as Rajendra Singh Rana vs Swami Prasad Maurya (2007) and Jyotiraditya Scindia vs Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the spirit of this law, stressing the importance of political accountability and party discipline.
Political leaders across party lines have expressed their views on the issue of defection, albeit with varying degrees of sincerity. While some have called for stricter enforcement of the anti-defection law, others have defended defections as a legitimate expression of political freedom. In fact, in 1985 when the anti-defection bill was being discussed in Parliament, a cheeky example was given. Deba Prasad Ray, an MP, said: “Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal the three stalwarts, were expelled from Congress Party for nine years. That happened in those days. Maybe, Dr. Shanti Patel will call them as defectors. But history proved that they represented the real freedom struggle, they represented the real party and then the people who expelled them were not remembered by the country at a subsequent stage.”
Divisions within the Congress in Indira Gandhi’s era and in the current scenario where the NCP and Shiv Sena split are cases in point. Which party is authentic has been the crux of many complex legal battles fought in the Supreme Court.
In another statement given some time back, Kharge criticised rampant defections, stating: “Defection is not just a betrayal of the electorate, but also a betrayal of the democratic principles we stand for. It is high time we put an end to this culture of opportunism and prioritise the interests of the people.”
However, not all political leaders share Kharge’s sentiment. Some have argued that defections are a natural consequence of ideological differences within parties and should be viewed as a democratic right rather than a malpractice. This dichotomy of perspectives underscores the complexity of the issue and the challenges associated with addressing it comprehensively.
As per the 1985 law, a “defection” by one-third of the elected members of a political party was considered a “merger”, but as per the 2003 amendment, at least two-thirds of the members of a party have to be in favour of a “merger” for it to have legal validity. Hence, the anti-defection law does not apply if the defectors account for more than two-thirds of the party they initially belonged to.
Also, the decision to disqualify MPs or MLAs lies with the Speaker of the House, who customarily belongs to the ruling party or the party benefiting from the defections. This raises concerns about the impartiality of the Speaker. Is it any wonder then that floor crossing, defections and splits have continued unabated?
Several high-profile instances of defection have rocked the political landscape in recent years, further highlighting the urgency of reforming the anti-defection law. One such case involved the mass defection of legislators from the Congress to the BJP in Karnataka in 2019 and ultimately led to the collapse of the Congress-JD(S) coalition government.
Similarly, the defection of prominent leaders, such as Jyotiraditya Scindia from the Congress to the BJP and the formation of a new political party by former members of the Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh are indicative of the widespread prevalence of defection across party lines.
Former Chief Justice Dipak Misra had emphasised the importance of reforms and stated: “The anti-defection law is a cornerstone of our democracy, and any attempt to subvert it undermines the very foundation of our political system. It is incumbent upon all stakeholders to work towards ensuring its effective implementation.”
Reforming this law requires a multi-pronged approach. It should include amending the law to prevent circumvention and misuse by political parties and ensuring that the spirit of the law is upheld. Accountability should be enhanced by imposing strict penalties for defection, including disqualification from holding public office. Transparency in political funding and decision-making processes will help reduce the influence of vested interests and encourage principled politics. Parties should aim at fostering internal democracy.
By reforming the anti-defection law and promoting a culture of political integrity and accountability, India can safeguard its democratic principles and uphold the trust of its citizens in the political process. In the final analysis, political will to conduct party politics with strict constitutional morality will be the saviour of a system going dysfunctional.