Schedule X Of Our Indian Constitution- A Myth Or A Reality?

Introduction

Politicians in India are the backbone of our bureaucratic and legislative systems; the name “politics” is derived from politicians. Politics is derived from the Greek word “Politika,” which means “of, for, or connected to citizens,” yet a layman might describe Indian politics as a quagmire into which one may never escape. Politicians make promises but never follow through on them; instead, they focus on lining their own coffers and degrading the lives of others. In the early years following Independence, it was very simple for a legislative, elected member to switch parties in order to advance their goals, but this caused many governments to fall over. Our legislatures passed the “Anti-defection law” in 1985, which added a new schedule, known as the X Schedule, to our Constitution.

The major goal of anti-defection legislation is to counteract “the evil of political defections.” This legislation was approved not long after Lt. Shri. Rajiv Gandhi won a resounding victory to become the nation’s prime minister. If Rajiv Gandhi and his administration hadn’t had an unheard-of overwhelming majority, this bill would not have been approved. This rule was designed to stop political distractions, but because to our lawmakers’ insatiable appetite and the high calibre of our legal community, it was easy for them to locate loopholes in the statute and exploit them for their own gain.

What is Anti-defection law?

The anti-defection rule was put into place to make sure that party members upheld the party’s platform, and if they did, they would forfeit their right to vote in the House. Both the Parliament and state legislatures are subject to the statute.

Historical Background 

The enormous number of defections that occurred in India in the late 1970s reflected a blatant disdain for the will of the voters who had elected those MPs. Moreover, in 1967, a number of state governments collapsed as a result of “party-hopping” MLAs. The situation quickly got worse, and in the end, the Parliament unanimously agreed to appoint a committee under the chairmanship of Y.B. Chavan to look into and report on this increasingly serious matter. The 32nd Constitutional Amendment Bill, which intended to bar defecting lawmakers from serving in ministerial positions, was subsequently filed to the Parliament after the Committee made its recommendations. This Amendment Bill lapsed when the Lok Parliament was dissolved. Next came the introduction of the 48th Constitution Amendment Bill, which was comparable to the previous one. Ultimately, the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, usually referred to as the Anti-Defection law, was enacted by the Rajiv Gandhi administration in 1985.

Discussion on the Indian Constitution’s 10th Schedule’s provisions

The first paragraph of the 10th Schedule

An ordinary definition or interpretation clause would be equal to the first sentence of the tenth schedule. It defines “House” to mean either the Legislative Assembly or the Parliament, “Legislature party” to mean the political party to which a member of the House originally belonged, and “Original political party” to indicate the party to which a member of the House belonged before defecting.

Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule

This sentence discusses defection-based disqualification.

Paragraph 3 of the 91st Constitutional Amendment and the 10th Schedule

With the passing of the Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act of 2003, this clause was eliminated from the Indian Constitution. The previous version of paragraph 3 stated that when a political party splits and at least one-third of the former party’s members join the new group, disqualification is not applicable. Nevertheless, paragraph 3 was removed by the Amendment Act.

The 91st Amendment attempted to prevent defectors from holding public office in addition to tightening the anti-defection statute. Anybody who has been barred from holding office as a minister at the national or state level due to a violation of the 10th Schedule was automatically barred. The Indian Constitution was changed by inserting Clauses 1(B) and 1(B) in Articles 75 and 164, respectively.

Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule

Members were protected from disqualification under this clause in the event that their political party was amalgamated with another political party. If at least two-thirds of the members of the legislative party approved of the merger, it was deemed to be legal. Under such circumstances, a member would not be disqualified if they began to operate as a separate organization with a few other members after refusing to join the new political party.

Paragraph 5 of the 10th Schedule

If, as a result of their election to that position, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chairman, or Deputy Chairman voluntarily renounces their membership in their original political party or does so after leaving that office, they are not subject to disqualification. As long as the individual does not re-join their original political party or any other political party during their term in office, this protection remains in effect.

Paragraph 6 of the 10th Schedule

In accordance with this clause, the Speaker or Chairman of a House has the last say on whether or not someone would be disqualified. The concerned House elects a member who in turn has final jurisdiction over the matter in cases where the Speaker or Chairman’s eligibility is in doubt.

Paragraph 7 of the 10th Schedule

Any dispute involving the 10th Schedule’s disqualification of a member of any House is outside the purview of Indian courts.

Paragraph 8 of the 10th Schedule 

The rule-making authority of the Speaker or Chairman of a House with relation to the disqualification procedure, etc., is discussed in paragraph 8. In addition, paragraph 3 gives the Chairman or Speaker of a House the authority to order that any wilful violation of the rules by any individual be regarded as a breach of the House’s privilege.

Advantages of the law

• Gives the government stability by avoiding changes in party affiliation.
• Assures that candidates who are elected with party backing and based on party platforms continue to support those policies. fosters party discipline as well.

Disadvantages of the law

• By forbidding lawmakers from switching parties, it lessens the government’s need to answer to the legislature and the general public.
• Restricts the member’s ability to express themselves freely by putting a stop to criticism of party positions.

Recent Orders on Disqualification by the Speaker for Defection

Shri Rajeev Ranjan Singh “Lalan,” v. Dr. P.P. Koya, JD(U) (January 9, 2009): A party whip ordered Dr. Koya to show up in the House and vote against the government’s Motion of Confidence, but he disobeyed the order. He stated that he was too sick to be in the House. The Speaker concluded that Dr. Koya withdrew from voting by staying home, and the evidence of his ‘illness’ was insufficient to support this conclusion.

Shri Prabhunath Singh v. Shri Ram Swaroop Prasad , JD(U) (October 3, 2008):  A party whip ordered Shri Prasad to be present in the Parliament, but he disobeyed. He disputed that any whip had been given or applied in his defense. According to the Speaker, it cannot be maintained that Shri Prasad had no awareness of the whip because there is proof that it had been brought to his residence and had been properly received.

 Shri Avtar Singh Bhadana vs. Shri Kuldeep Singh, Indian National Congress, (September 10, 2008): The INC said that Shri Bishnoi frequently openly denounced the Congress-led administration, voiced his disagreement with it, and called for the removal of the Haryana government. According to the Speaker, a candidate for a political party is elected in part because of the party’s policies. If the candidate leaves the party, he or she should reappear before the voters.

Shri Rajesh Verma vs. Shri Mohammad Shahid Akhlaque, BSP, (January 27, 2008): Shri Akhlaque allegedly joined the Samajwadi Party at a public gathering. Shri Akhlaque allegedly stated that he had always been an SP supporter in his heart during this encounter. The Speaker said that there is no justification for media reports and articles to be untrue. As a result of Shri Akhlaque’s voluntary resignation from the BSP, the Speaker declared him ineligible.

Conclusion

When the anti-defection law was created, it was intended to reduce political defect, but owing to escalating political corruption and dishonesty, it never developed effectively. As a result, the question of “whether accomplishing the aims of this law is a fact or a myth” has arisen. Politicians exploited this law’s weaknesses for personal gain.

In order to confront the scourge of corruption and defection, which has undermined the ideals of democracy, it is urgent that our Parliament be given a watchdog, and our constitutional experts should examine the matter.

Social activists like Anna Hazare and current public figures like Baba Ramdev are working hard with the assistance of citizens to ensure that our sleeping government wakes up and starts taking steps towards eradicating political corruption because only this will help in achieving the goal which was set. Mahatma Gandhi used the methods of “non-violence” and “satyagrah” to drive out the British from the country. If the aforementioned suggestions are taken into account and this law is amended, it may also be effective.

The government has a responsibility to step up and deliver now in order to prevent this legislation from becoming a fiction. In conclusion, I would like to quote that “a government, for safeguarding business exclusively, is about a corpse, and quickly collapses by its own corruption and decay.”

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening