-
Judiciary’s Stance: The Supreme Court (SC) asserts it can intervene when Speakers delay anti-defection decisions, emphasizing that the judiciary isn’t “powerless.”
-
Anti-Defection Law (ADL): Introduced to curb political defections, promote party discipline, and ensure stable governments. The law disqualifies legislators for voluntarily leaving their party, voting against party whips, or independent/nominated members joining parties after elections.
-
Speaker’s Role & Problem: The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial authority in deciding disqualification cases but lacks a specified deadline, leading to delays.
-
Impact of Delay: Undermines democracy by enabling defectors to continue in office, distorts the popular mandate, erodes political morality, and paralyzes governance. It also stalls re-elections.
-
Ruling Party Advantage: Delays often benefit the ruling party, allowing them to consolidate power through defections.
-
Needed Reforms:
- Statutory Time Limit: Implement a time-bound framework (e.g., 90 days) for Speakers to decide disqualification petitions.
- Independent Adjudication: Shift decision-making to a neutral tribunal or the Election Commission.
- Limit Whip’s Scope: Restrict whip enforcement to crucial motions.
- Encourage Political Ethics: Promote internal party dialogue and dissent.
Delay in Decisions of Anti-Defection Cases
