AA Edit | Reminder To Decide on Defectors

Defections by elected representatives using loopholes or interpretations of the law have of late been a bane of Indian democracy. While the law has been clear and conclusive in that it does not allow piecemeal defection or desertion by legislators elected on a party symbol and that the legislature party is part of the larger political party, the country has been witnessing large-scale changes of sides by members. The law entrusts the Speaker of the legislative body concerned to uphold the law in letter and spirit and decide such cases whether the deserters can remain members of the House or not.

The order of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, which upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu Speaker to accept the resignation of six MLAs of the AIADMK who voted against the party whip and later joined the ruling TVK, that the Speaker should decide on the disqualification petitions moved by their parent party in a time-bound manner, comes as a whiff of fresh air. While fixing a period of two months for the Speaker, the court also reminded him that he is “duty bound to rise above his individual predilections and respect the robe which the Constitution has gifted to him” and that he is expected to “respect the sensitive constitutional trust by acting on the disqualification proceedings with utmost expedition”. The court also made it clear that the question of resignation and the proceedings of disqualification are two entirely different issues.

It is not for the first time that courts have reminded the presiding officers of the Houses about the two elements that must be part of their decisions in such cases — impartiality and timelines. Several high courts and the Supreme Court have done it in the past. It is time that they paid heed to the suggestions the judiciary has placed before them and acted accordingly.