Do not insult voters

The Anti-Defection Law was introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1985. Although it was strengthened through an amendment in 2003, it has not completely prevented legislators from switching allegiances.

This law prohibits an elected representative from violating their party’s whip or joining another party after winning an election as a candidate of a specific party. However, as per a 2004 court ruling, if a party splits and two-thirds of its members merge with another party or form a new party, the Anti-Defection Law does not apply. This loophole has been used in the past to split parties and retain power with the support of a majority of legislators.

Defections often occur due to monetary and other enticements. In some instances, parties have kept their MLAs under strict security in resorts until the crucial day of proving the majority in the legislature. Under the Anti-Defection Law, decisions regarding the disqualification of members are made by the Lok Sabha Speaker (for Lok Sabha MPs), Rajya Sabha Chairman (for Rajya Sabha MPs), and Legislative Assembly Speaker (for MLAs). However, since there is no fixed time limit for making such decisions, if the defection favours the ruling party, the Speaker can delay the decision until the term of the assembly ends.

For local self-government bodies, the power to disqualify defectors lies with the State Election Commission, which conducts an inquiry before making a decision. Defected members who lose their positions may also be barred from contesting elections again. In some cases, political parties have forced mass resignations of MLAs of some parties to bring down a government and avoid anti-defection penalties. Imposing a lifetime ban on defectors could reduce defections by 99%.

From a moral perspective, switching allegiances after winning on the label of a party is not just betraying that party but also betraying the voters. The High Court recently observed that legislators who wish to defect should resign and seek a fresh mandate from the people, as that aligns with democratic values. Any other approach is equivalent to mocking the voters. This critical observation was made by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while granting anticipatory bail to UDF leaders involved in the no-confidence motion conflict in the Koothattukulam Municipality. The court emphasized that people should take actions that uphold democratic values and that voters should respond in the next election either by voting out those who act against these values or by supporting them. This is a highly significant observation.