In India's democratic system, defection has become a persistent issue, leading to a steady decline in the reputation and credibility of political parties. The Supreme Court's recent remarks on this matter are both timely and significant, highlighting that defection poses a threat to democracy. No democracy worldwide can operate effectively without ideological freedom. Political parties are deeply committed to their ideological beliefs, and they engage with the public based on these principles to garner support. The public places its trust in them, determining the success or failure of political representatives in elections. However, when these representatives switch parties after winning, driven by a desire for power, it leaves the public astonished.
The current issue is deeply linked to political opportunism, where commitment to ideology is often overlooked. Opportunism involves sacrificing one's principles for the sake of gaining power. To address this problem in India, the Anti-Defection Law was introduced by Parliament during the late 1980s under Rajiv Gandhi's leadership. This legislation permitted party members to change their allegiance only if they represented one-third of their party's total membership. However, this did not stop members from smaller parties from defecting to other parties. As a result, under Atal Bihari Vajpayee's leadership, the threshold was increased from one-third to two-thirds, making defection somewhat more difficult. Nevertheless, a workaround was discovered in Goa around 2000, where the assembly's total strength was strategically reduced, allowing the ruling party to maintain a majority by convincing some MLAs willing to switch parties to resign. Furthermore, the anti-defection law included a clause that gave the Speaker of the House the power to make the final decision regarding the membership of party-switching members. This clause was added to the 10th schedule of the Constitution, making the Speaker's decision immune to court challenges. However, a loophole was exploited due to the Speaker's extensive powers. The law does not specify a deadline for the Speaker to decide on the membership of defecting members, leaving it to the Speaker's discretion to address petitions at their convenience.
While hearing the petition regarding the defection of ten Indian National Committee party MLAs of Telangana state to Congress, a two-member bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih said that it is the job of the Parliament of India to consider whether the powers given to the Speakers of the elected Houses in this matter are capable and useful in preventing defection? This situation has arisen because ten MLAs of Telangana had announced defection from their party Indian National Committee to Congress after the assembly elections held in the state in 2023. Against this, the Indian National Committee prayed to the Speaker of the Assembly to cancel the membership of all these. But the Speaker has not even issued notice to the concerned MLAs even after seven months have passed. Whereas in the anti-defection law, the Speaker was given the right to decide about disqualification because such petitions were filed in the court and it took a lot of time.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has directed the Speaker in the case of Telangana to try to settle the matter within three months. The learned judges have also cautioned the Parliament to review the powers given to the Speaker and take effective steps. The Supreme Court is absolutely justified in saying this because the manner in which the anti-defection law has been circumvented in various states in the last thirty years is astonishing. When there was no anti-defection law, till the seventies, the future of governments in states was considered to depend on defection. In the sixties, after the 1967 elections, independents and members of some other parties also used to change parties between morning and evening. The first example of this was seen in Odisha in 1956 when the Congress government of the then Chief Minister Shri Navkrishna Choudhary was losing and gaining majority on a daily basis. Fed up with this, the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had requested his party's strong leader late Dr. Harekrishna Mehtab to take over the reins of state politics. At that time Dr. Mehtab was the Governor of Mumbai. As soon as Mehtab became the Chief Minister, he saved his government by proposing to cooperate with a regional party of the state to counter defection. After this, in 1967, when non-Congress governments were formed in nine states of the country, the market for defection was very hot and the phrase 'Aaya Ram-Gaya Ram' became popular in Haryana. But in the last thirty years, despite the existence of the anti-defection law, new methods of defection were invented and with its help new governments were formed.