Politics Among Defectors
(Freedom of expression over time and the need for balance in the law of defection are urgently needed)
----Priyanka Saurabh,
Amid the deteriorating political crisis in Rajasthan recently, the Rajasthan Assembly Speaker has issued disqualification notices to rebel MLAs under the ‘Anti-Secession Act’. Rebel Congress leader Sachin Pilot and 18 other disgruntled MLAs have challenged the disqualification notice in the High Court. Rebel legislators on the issue argue that they cannot be disqualified under the Parliamentary ‘Anti-Secession Act’ based on disagreeing with the decisions and policies of some leaders outside the Assembly, it is wrong to do so.
The case is that some rebel Congress MLAs, including the Congress Deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan, did not attend the recent meetings of the Congress MLAs despite repeated invitations. Following this, on the appeal of the Chief Whip of the party in the state, a notice regarding disqualification has been issued to these MLAs by the Speaker of the Assembly.
In response, the rebel MLAs, in their writ petition, have sought cancellation of the notice, arguing that they have not relinquished their membership of the House, hence the 'anti-defection law' cannot be applied to them. Nor can they be held accountable under anti-defection law for failing to attend meetings.
The writ petition has been filed by the rebel legislators challenging the 'Legitimacy of Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on Change of Party) Rules', 1989 and Clause 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. Which states that a member will be liable for disqualification under the defection law if he voluntarily renounces the membership of a political party.
By the way, the debate on the 10th schedule has been going on again and again. Part 1 (a) of its Chapter 2 states that a member of any party in the House may be disqualified if he voluntarily withdraws his membership from the party. Congress legal advisers and the ruling party believe that not attending the meeting of the legislature (Pilot boycotted two meetings of the Congress legislature ignoring the party whip) is tantamount to leaving the membership voluntarily, but many experts disagree on this.
In the last few years, there has been a lot of debate on anti-defection laws in many such high-profile cases across the country. In 2016, 9 Congress MLAs changed sides in Uttarakhand, the BJP MLAs claimed a majority. Governor KK Paul asked the Congress to prove its majority within the stipulated time. And presidential rule was imposed there after the opposition of the Congress. The Congress later opposed it in court.
The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution in 1985 by the 52nd Amendment Act. In which it has been stated that MLAs can be disqualified based on defection by the presiding officer of the legislature based on a petition by another member of the House. The decision on the question as disqualification based on defection is the final decision of the Speaker or Speaker of such House. This law applies to both Parliament and State Assemblies.
If a member of the House belonging to a political party voluntarily relinquishes membership of his political party, or, contrary to the instructions of his political party, does not vote or vote in the legislature. And if the member has taken prior permission, or such voting or abstaining is condemned by the party within 15 days, the member shall not be disqualified.
But legislators can change their party without risking disqualification in certain circumstances. The law allows mergers with one party or another, provided that at least two-thirds of the legislators are in favor of the merger. In such a scenario, neither the members who decide to merge, nor those living with the original party will face disqualification.
Besides, it has also been said that the decision of the presiding officer is not subject to judicial review. In 1992, the Supreme Court overturned this condition, leading to an appeal against the decision of the presiding officer in the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, it was assumed that there could be no judicial intervention unless the presiding officer gave his order.
The Supreme Court, in its order dated January 21, 2020, said many things about the appropriate period for disqualification decision unless there are "exceptional circumstances". Failure to give a decision by the Speaker within the period may force the court to intervene in the disqualification case.
The Supreme Court asked Parliament to consider an independent and permanent body to decide on the disqualification petition, which requires an amendment to the Constitution. It was also stated that we are facing a serious challenge to the erosion of India's parliamentary system, therefore, beyond institutional reforms, we also need a popular expression of a moral politics to keep the masses away from such political maneuvers.
By the way, party loyalty provides stability to the government. This ensures that the candidates remain loyal to the party as well as the citizens. Promotes party discipline. Facilitating the merger of political parties without attracting anti-defection provisions is expected to reduce corruption at the political level. Provides for punitive measures against a member who blames one party to another.
In such a case, a public image of unequal status or disagreement by members of the same political party is not seen as a desirable position in the political tradition. However, when many political parties are involved in the formation of the government, there can be justification for misunderstandings between the parties.
At a time when India's rank has fallen sharply in the 'Latest Democracy Index' (2019), our Parliament today is expected to take steps to improve and strengthen all these. There is an urgent need to make necessary changes in the law to maintain balance in the law of freedom of expression and change of party in time.
------Priyanka Saurabh,
Amid the deteriorating political crisis in Rajasthan recently, the Rajasthan Assembly Speaker has issued disqualification notices to rebel MLAs under the ‘Anti-Secession Act’. Rebel Congress leader Sachin Pilot and 18 other disgruntled MLAs have challenged the disqualification notice in the High Court. Rebel legislators on the issue argue that they cannot be disqualified under the Parliamentary ‘Anti-Secession Act’ based on disagreeing with the decisions and policies of some leaders outside the Assembly, it is wrong to do so.
The case is that some rebel Congress MLAs, including the Congress Deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan, did not attend the recent meetings of the Congress MLAs despite repeated invitations. Following this, on the appeal of the Chief Whip of the party in the state, a notice regarding disqualification has been issued to these MLAs by the Speaker of the Assembly.
In response, the rebel MLAs, in their writ petition, have sought cancellation of the notice, arguing that they have not relinquished their membership of the House, hence the 'anti-defection law' cannot be applied to them. Nor can they be held accountable under anti-defection law for failing to attend meetings.
The writ petition has been filed by the rebel legislators challenging the 'Legitimacy of Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on Change of Party) Rules', 1989 and Clause 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. Which states that a member will be liable for disqualification under the defection law if he voluntarily renounces the membership of a political party.
By the way, the debate on the 10th schedule has been going on again and again. Part 1 (a) of its Chapter 2 states that a member of any party in the House may be disqualified if he voluntarily withdraws his membership from the party. Congress legal advisers and the ruling party believe that not attending the meeting of the legislature (Pilot boycotted two meetings of the Congress legislature ignoring the party whip) is tantamount to leaving the membership voluntarily, but many experts disagree on this.
In the last few years, there has been a lot of debate on anti-defection laws in many such high-profile cases across the country. In 2016, 9 Congress MLAs changed sides in Uttarakhand, the BJP MLAs claimed a majority. Governor KK Paul asked the Congress to prove its majority within the stipulated time. And presidential rule was imposed there after the opposition of the Congress. The Congress later opposed it in court.
The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution in 1985 by the 52nd Amendment Act. In which it has been stated that MLAs can be disqualified based on defection by the presiding officer of the legislature based on a petition by another member of the House. The decision on the question as disqualification based on defection is the final decision of the Speaker or Speaker of such House. This law applies to both Parliament and State Assemblies.
If a member of the House belonging to a political party voluntarily relinquishes membership of his political party, or, contrary to the instructions of his political party, does not vote or vote in the legislature. And if the member has taken prior permission, or such voting or abstaining is condemned by the party within 15 days, the member shall not be disqualified.
But legislators can change their party without risking disqualification in certain circumstances. The law allows mergers with one party or another, provided that at least two-thirds of the legislators are in favor of the merger. In such a scenario, neither the members who decide to merge, nor those living with the original party will face disqualification.
Besides, it has also been said that the decision of the presiding officer is not subject to judicial review. In 1992, the Supreme Court overturned this condition, leading to an appeal against the decision of the presiding officer in the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, it was assumed that there could be no judicial intervention unless the presiding officer gave his order.
The Supreme Court, in its order dated January 21, 2020, said many things about the appropriate period for disqualification decision unless there are "exceptional circumstances". Failure to give a decision by the Speaker within the period may force the court to intervene in the disqualification case.
The Supreme Court asked Parliament to consider an independent and permanent body to decide on the disqualification petition, which requires an amendment to the Constitution. It was also stated that we are facing a serious challenge to the erosion of India's parliamentary system, therefore, beyond institutional reforms, we also need a popular expression of a moral politics to keep the masses away from such political maneuvers.
By the way, party loyalty provides stability to the government. This ensures that the candidates remain loyal to the party as well as the citizens. Promotes party discipline. Facilitating the merger of political parties without attracting anti-defection provisions is expected to reduce corruption at the political level. Provides for punitive measures against a member who blames one party to another.
In such a case, a public image of unequal status or disagreement by members of the same political party is not seen as a desirable position in the political tradition. However, when many political parties are involved in the formation of the government, there can be justification for misunderstandings between the parties.
At a time when India's rank has fallen sharply in the 'Latest Democracy Index' (2019), our Parliament today is expected to take steps to improve and strengthen all these. There is an urgent need to make necessary changes in the law to maintain balance in the law of freedom of expression and change of party in time.
----Priyanka Saurabh,
Research Scholar in Political Science, Delhi University,
Poetess, independent journalists and columnists, radio and TV panelists,
No comments:
Post a Comment