Q.) Discuss the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. How effective has the Anti-Defection Law been in curbing political defections in India ? (RAS)

• The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. Its objective was to curb the growing tendency of legislators to defect from one party to another for personal gain or office, which was causing frequent government instability after elections. It is commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law.

Provisions of the Tenth Schedule

1. Disqualification of a party member: if he voluntarily gives up party membership, or votes against the party whip without prior permission and it is not condoned within 15 days.
2. Disqualification of an independent member: if he joins a political party after election.
3. Disqualification of a nominated member: if he joins a party after six months of taking his seat; he may join a party within the first six months.
4. Exemption on merger: no disqualification if two-thirds of members of a legislature party agree to a merger with another party. Earlier, a one-third split was also exempted, but this provision was misused and was removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003; now only a two-thirds merger is valid.
5. Deciding authority: the Chairman or Speaker decides disqualification questions; his decision was made subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case, 1992.

Effectiveness of the Anti-Defection Law

Positive points

1. Individual defections curbed: retail-level floor crossing for personal or ministerial gain, common in the 1960s-70s ('Aaya Ram Gaya Ram' in Haryana), has come down sharply.
2. Government stability: ruling parties are no longer as exposed to losing majority through single-member defections as before 1985.
3. Party discipline: the whip system ensures a party's legislators vote as one unit on the floor of the House.
4. Judicial check added: the Kihoto Hollohan case brought the Speaker's decision under judicial review, checking arbitrary use of power.

Negative points 

1. Merger route misused: the two-thirds merger clause has become a route for wholesale defection, as seen in Karnataka (2019) and Madhya Pradesh (2020), where mass resignations toppled state governments.
2. Speaker's delay: being a party member himself, the Speaker often delays disqualification decisions for political convenience, as seen in Manipur and Maharashtra (2022).
3. No fixed time limit: the Schedule sets no deadline for the Speaker to decide; the Supreme Court in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case, 2020 only recommended a three-month limit.
4. Curbs legislator's independence: the whip on almost every vote weakens a member's free judgment and reduces healthy debate in the House.

Conclusion:

• The deciding authority could be shifted from the Speaker to an independent body such as the President or Governor acting on the advice of the Election Commission, as recommended by the Dinesh Goswami Committee and the 170th Law Commission Report. A fixed time limit for deciding petitions, and limiting the whip to confidence motions and money bills, would help the law serve its purpose without curbing healthy debate.