AA Edit | Defection Merits Judicial Review

The reference made by the Supreme Court while dismissing a petition regarding the defection of six Opposition AIADMK legislators in Tamil Nadu to the ruling TVK that “somebody resigns and becomes minister; it’s part of political process” is a sad reflection of its disinterestedness in the administration of its country even when called upon to adjudicate on critical questions.

True, this country had its share of Aaya Ram, Gaya Rams and it was specifically to end the practice of legislators elected on a party’s symbol acting as free radicals and moving freely that the Parliament experimented with various legislative tools. The anti-defection law, enacted in the 1980s, in its original version, had given the legislators some flexibility to change parties if they could muster up the support of a third of the members of the legislature party. However, several amendments later, the law now bars the legislators from owning a political mind of their own. Translated into practical terms, the legislators who violate the whip of a political party on the floor of the House risk losing its membership.

In short, the apex court’s inference that a legislator can resign from his party, cross over to another and become a minister does not square with the law or its legislative intent. The larger point is that the people vote a specific party to power or to the Opposition benches and hence only that party can take a political position or policy decision which is at variance with its earlier ones.

Unfortunately, what we witness across state legislatures and Parliament is that MLAs and MPs break free from their parties and join new formations as and when it suits their own interest and the presiding officers make decisions favouring them. It is time the apex court applied its mind to a practice the law wanted to end and send the right message across to the defectors and their mentors.