Anti-Defection Law | 07 Feb 2026

Source: IE 

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) of India gave a final three-week deadline to the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide pending disqualification petitions against defecting Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) under the Anti-Defection Law, stating that non-compliance will invite contempt proceedings.

What is the Anti-Defection Law? 

• About: Anti-Defection Law, introduced by the 52nd Amendment in 1985, adding the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. 
  • It aimed to stop political defections for personal gain. It applies to both Parliament and State Assemblies. 
  • The law was strengthened by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which omitted the provision related to a "split" (where 1/3rd members could defect) and retained only the "merger" provision. 
• Objectives of the Law:  Maintain political stability and prevent government toppling and curbs horse-trading by discouraging parties from luring legislators with incentives. 
  • Enforce party discipline via voting according to the party whip. 
  • Allow merger of parties without disqualification and strengthen democracy. 
• Grounds for Disqualification:  Voluntarily give up party membership (can be inferred from conduct, not just resignation).  
  • Voting or abstaining from voting against the party whip can lead to disqualification. 
  • A legislator can further be disqualified if he is an independently elected member and joins a political party. 
  • A nominated member is disqualified if they join a political party after six months of becoming a legislator. 
• Exceptions to Disqualification: A party can merge with another if two-thirds of its legislators agree, with no disqualification for those who merge or stay. 
  • No disqualification for Speaker/Chairman/Deputy Chairman resigning from the party to remain neutral. 
• Role of the Presiding Officer: Disqualification cases are decided by the Speaker/Chairman.  
  • The decision is subject to judicial review, courts can intervene only after the decision is made. 
• Criticisms of the Law:   No time limit specified in the law for the Speaker to decide. 
  • Courts have criticized delays, but can't intervene until the Speaker makes a decision. 
  • Speakers often belong to the ruling party and are accused of delaying disqualification petitions for years to favor the government (e.g., the "pocket veto" issue). 
  • It curbs dissent by limiting legislators' freedom to vote as per their conscience or represent their constituents, forcing them to follow party lines.  
  • It also discourages intra-party democracy by allowing party leadership to suppress internal criticism.

What Measures can Strengthen Anti-Defection Law? 

• Stronger Enforcement: As recommended by committees like the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), Hashim Abdul Halim Committee (1994), and the Law Commission Reports (1999 & 2015), defection proceedings should be made time-bound, transparent, and open to public scrutiny to build trust, ensure accountability, and prevent misuse of the Anti-Defection Law.  
• Decision-Making Power: Transfer the authority to decide disqualification cases from the Speaker to an independent body (a permanent tribunal headed by retired judges or the Election Commission), to reduce political bias.  
  • The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended that defection cases be decided by the President or Governor on the Election Commission's advice.  
• Intra-Party Democracy: Encourage internal party debates and reduce top-down decision-making, as recommended by the 170th Law Commission Report. 
• Resignation Convention: Adopting the British convention where the Speaker resigns from their party upon election to the post could help ensure neutrality. 
• Limiting the Scope of the "Whip": The Whip should only be binding for "Critical Motions" (e.g., No-Confidence Motion, Money Bills, or motions threatening the government's survival). 
  • On all other bills (developmental, social), MPs/MLAs should be free to vote according to their conscience and constituency interests. This restores the balance between stability and representative democracy.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s warning exposes delays and bias in enforcing the Anti-Defection Law. Reforms such as time-bound decisions and independent adjudication are needed to uphold democratic accountability.