Shivangshi Mitra, Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
This paper delves into the effectiveness and relevance of the anti-defection law introduced via the 52nd Amendment Act in the Tenth Schedule. It does so by analysing the same in light of its stated purpose while also drawing emphasis on paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Tenth Schedule. Further, the paper endeavours to examine the role of the speaker. The is achieved by qualitatively scrutinising how the caveat in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu has been neglected, understanding Constituent Assembly debates and by borrowing an empirical lens to draw conclusions with regard to the Monsoon parliamentary session in 2021 to assert that the cardinal cog of the constitutional democracy is being stifled by a purposive interpretive of the anti-defection law. The law is further put through a test against the anvil of constitutionality under Article 105 of the Constitution of India. The paper also sheds light on how the anti-defection law has failed to curb vote-bribery and related crimes that may be believed to induce political instability in light of the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State. The role of the speaker is discussed and analysed by tracing the controversies attached to the same with regard to the impartiality that is expected of the office since the conception of the law as well as in light of recent cases such as Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly, Balachandra L. Jarkhioli v. B.S. Yeddyurappa, Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, and Pema Khandu and Ors v. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
Comments