|-
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Coalition Government”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 150
(..22..)
COALITION GOVERNMENT: ANTI-DEFECTION LAW.
QUESTION BANK.
Q.1. Explain the modern trend of Coalition Government? State the Constitutional
provisions against defection.
Q.2 Write a detailed note on Anti-defection Law.
SHORT NOTES.
1. Coalition Government; Anti-Defection Law.
2. Coalition Government.
I.
INTRODUCTION:-
Gone are those days when the National Congress alone ruled the
country by forming Government at the Centre and in the States. In today’s time,
people prefer more to local parties compared to National Parties. No party on its
own could form a Government in the Centre or the States. Therefore, the coalition
Government has no alternative. Coalition Government means the Government of
the different parties. The coalition government has been a trend in the Centre as
well as in the States for many years (except for the recent BJP Government). No
doubt it has merits as well as demerits. Proclamation of a National Emergency by
Mrs Indira Gandhi in the country could become possible only due to the single-
party government of the National Congress State Emergencies in various states
resulting from single party government in the Centre. Therefore, in this sense, a
coalition government has some advantages. At the very time, the coalition
government also had some disadvantages, i.e., horse-trading of MLAs and MPs to
form a majority became a practice in every election. Therefore, no political party
|-
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Coalition Government”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 151
is stable and able to implement it. Consequently, democracy has been threatened.
The defection of the Members of Parliament (MP) and Members of State
Legislative Assemblies (MLA) from their parties creates many problems and
corruption. To avoid this defect In a democracy, the Anti-Defection Law has been
passed.
II.
COMING INTO FORCE OF ANTI-DEFECTION LAW:-
The long-awaited Anti-Defection Bill came into operation on 15th
February 1985 after President Gyani Zail Singh assented to it. The Bill, the first
major legislation of Prime Minister Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s Government, was passed
by the two Houses of Parliament at the end of January 1985.
This Act disqualifies any party member from membership of the
Parliament or State Legislature if he defects the party after an election. However,
separate provisions deal with splits and mergers of the political parties, which will
not attract disqualification under the Act. A split, which will not attract
disqualification, should have the backing of one-third of the total membership of
the concerned party. For a merger, it should have the backing of two-thirds of the
party's total membership
.
III. OBJECTS AND REASONS.
The evil of political defection has been a matter of national concern. If it is
not combated, it will undermine the very foundation of democracy and the
principles which sustain it. With this objective, parliament passed the Anti-
Defection Law.
VI. DISQUALIFICATION ON THE GROUND OF DEFECTION.
52nd Amendment has amended Articles 101,102, 190, and 191 and
added a new Schedule, the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, which specifies the
disqualification on the ground of defection. The amendment has added a new
clause (2) to Articles 102 and 191, which provides that a member shall be
disqualified for being a member of either the House of the Parliament or the State
legislature if he incurs disqualification specified in the Tenth Schedule, i.e.-
(1) if he voluntarily gives up membership of the political party on which ticket he
has been elected to the House or
(2) if he votes or abstains from voting in the House against any direction of the
political party or by any person or authority authorized by (the party from which
he is elected) on this behalf, without the prior permission of such party and unless
the party has condoned it within 15 days from the date of voting or abstention; or
(3) if any nominated member joins any political party after the expiry of six months
|-
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Coalition Government”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 152
from the date when he takes his seat in the House (e.g., Speaker, Governor, etc.).
ExceptionsThe above disqualification will, however, not apply-
a) If a member of the Parliament or a State Legislature goes out of his party as a
result of a split in the original party, provided such group consists of not less than
1/3 of the total membership of that party in the House,
b) If a member goes out as a result of a merger of his original political party with
another political party, provided 2/3 of the members of the legislative party have
agreed to such merger,
or
c) If a member, after being elected as the presiding officer (e.g., Speaker or Deputy
Speaker, etc.), gives up membership of the party to which he belonged or does not
rejoin that party or becomes a member of another party.
V.
DISPUTE RELATING TO DISQUALIFICATION: -
Suppose any question arises as to whether a member of a House has
become subject to any of the disqualifications under the Tenth Schedule. In that
case, the question shall be referred to the Chairman or the Speaker of such House,
whose decision shall be final. The presiding officer's decision shall not be called
into question in any court of law.
There is no doubt that the Anti-Defection Law has proved important,
but some instances reveal that the provisions of the Anti-Defection Act have failed
to eradicate the evil of defection. Under the anti-defection law, the Speaker had the
power to decide whether or not a legislator had defected from the party. His
decision in this matter was final, and the courts were barred from interfering in his
decision. How the Speakers have exercised this power in various States has left
enough scope for controversy. The decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr Rabi
Ray, to declare 25 “unattached members” without giving them the opportunity of
hearing and later on agreeing to reconsider his decision was highly objectionable.
He knew that the Janata Dal had split and dissidents had formed a new party under
the leadership of Mr Chandra Shekhar, and its strength was more than 1/3 of the
original party and thus beyond the purview of the defection law. The tenth
Schedule does not mention the words “unattached members”. If there is a split and
the group has the strength of 1/3 of the original party, it becomes a new political
party straightway. Still, if the strength of the dissidents is less than 1/3, they should
|-
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Coalition Government”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 153
Facts—The Supreme Court has struck down Para 7 of the Anti-defection Law
(Tenth Schedule), which provides that the Speaker’s decision regarding the
disqualification shall be final and that no court can examine its validity.
Held—The Court held that the speaker's function while applying the anti-defection
Law is like that of a Tribunal and, therefore
VI. SUGGESTION: -
It is, therefore, suggested that a provision for appeal to the Court from
,
is open to judicial review.
the decision of the Speaker should be made in the Tenth Schedule. “Judicial
review” is an essential feature of the Constitution. Courts should have the power
to examine the extent and scope of constitutional authorities' powers.
In India, the Constitution is supreme and not the Parliament.
Supreme Court is a guardian of the Constitution. Therefore, judicial review cannot
be prohibited.
*****
1 During 1990 three Nagaland Governments fell due to defections. In Nagaland, the Speaker disqualified 10 members of the breakway group of the
Congress-I whose defection led to the fall of the S. C. Jamir Ministry, which had come to power after elections in January 1990. Later on, the
Speaker declared these members “qualified”. The Chishi led U. L. F. also collapsed after 28 days in the similar manner when 17 of the 24 N. P. C.
members in a House of 50 withdrew their support to the Chief Minister. Mr. Vomuzo, who had toppled the Chishi led Front and had became the
Chief Minister on June 1990 with the Congress I support. Later on 12 members of N. P. C. withdrew support to the Chief Minister. Following
withdrawal of support by 12 M. L. A’s, the ruling party was reduced to minority. But the Chief Minister claimed that he would prove his majority
in the House. A day before the Assembly Session the Chief Minister expelled two M. L. As. out of the 12 M. L. As., who had withdrawn support
to the Chief Minister.
2 (1992) 1 SCC 309.