Skip to main content

Anti-Defection Law

 ANTI-DEFECTION LAW

Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 prescribes the conditions for disqualification from the membership of the parliament and state legislatures:

  • Disqualification on conviction for certain offences

  • Disqualification for corruption or disloyalty (he will be dismissed for 5 years)

  • Disqualification for Government contracts, etc.

  • Disqualification for office under Government Company

  • Disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses

  • Removal or reduction of period of disqualification

  • Having a share in a company or corporation where government has more than 25% share.

Anti-defection laws also deal with the disqualification of the parliament members. Through the 52nd amendment of the Indian constitution [10th schedule of it], disqualification on grounds of defection was introduced in 1985. Articles 101, 102, 190, 191 are amended through the 52nd amendment of the Indian constitution.

In 1967, a Haryana MLA, Gaya Lal switched parties three times in a day, from then Aaya Ram Gaya Ram became a common phrase in Indian politics. The anti-defection law was enacted to prohibit political defections motivated by office rewards or other equivalent factors.

In 1985, the 10th Schedule was inserted in the Constitution. It affirms the procedure by which legislators can be disqualified by the Presiding Officer of a legislature for defection, based on a petition from any other member of the House. A legislator is considered to have defected if he either voluntarily leaves his party or disobeys the party leadership's directions on a vote. This means that a legislator who defies (abstains or votes against) the party whip on any issue risks losing his House membership. Both Parliament and state legislatures are subject to this law.

A legislator is deemed to be defected if he voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote. This implies that a legislator defying the party whip on any issue can lose his House Membership. This law is applicable to both Parliament and state assemblies.

Whip:

  • In India, the concept of the whip was inherited from colonial British rule.

  • Every major political party appoints a whip who is responsible for the party's discipline and behaviors on the floor of the house.

  • Whip is not a person; it is a direction or order passed by a political party to its own members to maintain discipline on the floor of the house or to vacate, or not to vote, etc.

Para 7 of 10th Schedule of 52nd amendment of Indian Constitution was stuck down declaring it (unconstitutional) as against the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It is barring the court’s jurisdiction in intervening in the disqualification of a member under anti-defection law. So, now even the decision of the speaker can be questioned. If any member after taking his oath of allegiance after 6 months goes to another party, he will be dismissed.

Exceptions to Anti-defection law

Legislators may change their party without the risk of disqualification in certain circumstances:

  • A party can merge with or into another party if at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger. In that case, no one in the merged party or the original party will face disqualification.

  • A person cannot be disqualified if he goes out of his party as a result of a split in his original party and such group consists of not less than one third of the total membership of that party in the house.

  • If a member after being elected as a presiding officer gives up a party to which he belongs or becomes a member of another party, he/she can't be dismissed.

According to the recommendations of various expert committees rather than Presiding Officer, the decision to disqualify any member should be made by the President (in case of MPs) or the Governor (in case of MLAs) on the advice of the Election Commission.

Which would be similar to the process that is followed for disqualification of a member in case the member holds an office of profit (i.e., the member holds an office under the central or state government which carries in a remuneration, and has not been excluded in a list made by the legislature).


Anti-Defection Law by Velanati Jyothirmai at Lex Cliq
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more