(FREE) UPSC Current Affairs 2024 PDF

THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 16 July 2020 The Supreme Court should intervene to arrest cynical violations of the Tenth Schedule (The Hindu)

The Supreme Court should intervene to arrest cynical violations of the Tenth Schedule (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2: Polity
Prelims level: anti-defection law
Mains level: Role of Supreme Court against to arrest cynical violations of the Tenth Schedule

A new template appears to have evolved to frustrate the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, or the anti-defection law.
It is now no longer necessary for the party in opposition to bring down a government by splitting the ruling party, a practice that the anti-defection law had effectively curbed by mandating that two-thirds of the legislators have to leave in order for it to be a legitimate split.
The new-age hustlers circumvent this provision by the simple expedient of getting the required number of ruling party legislators to resign.
This shrinks the size of the House to the extent that the opposing party numbers form the majority.

Aaya Ram Gaya Ram was a phrase that became popular in Indian politics after a Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changed his party thrice within the same day in 1967.
The anti-defection law sought to prevent such political defections which may be due to reward of office or other similar considerations.
The Tenth Schedule was inserted in the Constitution in 1985. It lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding Officer of a legislature based on a petition by any other member of the House.
A legislator is deemed to have defected if he either 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 (abstaining or voting against) the party whip on any issue can lose his membership of the House. The law applies to both Parliament and state assemblies.

Yes, legislators may change their party without the risk of disqualification in certain circumstances.
The law allows a party to merge with or into another party provided that at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger.
In such a scenario, neither the members who decide to merge, nor the ones who stay with the original party will face disqualification.
Various expert committees have recommended that rather than the Presiding Officer, the decision to disqualify a 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.
This would be similar to the process followed for disqualification in case the person holds an office of profit (i.e. the person holds an office under the central or state government which carries a remuneration, and has not been excluded in a list made by the legislature).

The Supreme Court has interpreted different provisions of the law. We discuss some of these below.
The phrase ‘Voluntarily gives up his membership’ has a wider connotation than resignation.
The law provides for a member to be disqualified if he ‘voluntarily gives up his membership’. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted that in the absence of a formal resignation by the member, the giving up of membership can be inferred by his conduct.
In other judgments, members who have publicly expressed opposition to their party or support for another party were deemed to have resigned.

The law initially stated that the decision of the Presiding Officer is not subject to judicial review. This condition was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1992, thereby allowing appeals against the Presiding Officer’s decision in the High Court and Supreme Court.
However, it held that there may not be any judicial intervention until the Presiding Officer gives his order.
Is there a time limit within which the Presiding Officer has to decide?
The law does not specify a time-period for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification plea. Given that courts can intervene only after the Presiding Officer has decided on the matter, the petitioner seeking disqualification has no option but to wait for this decision to be made.
There have been several cases where the Courts have expressed concern about the unnecessary delay in deciding such petitions.
In some cases this delay in decision making has resulted in members, who have defected from their parties, continuing to be members of the House.
There have also been instances where opposition members have been appointed ministers in the government while still retaining the membership of their original parties in the legislature.

The anti-defection law seeks to provide a stable government by ensuring the legislators do not switch sides. However, this law also restricts a legislator from voting in line with his conscience, judgement and interests of his electorate.
Such a situation impedes the oversight function of the legislature over the government, by ensuring that members vote based on the decisions taken by the party leadership, and not what their constituents would like them to vote for.
Political parties issue a direction to MPs on how to vote on most issues, irrespective of the nature of the issue.
Several experts have suggested that the law should be valid only for those votes that determine the stability of the government (passage of the annual budget or no-confidence motions)

Q.1) With reference to the India Global week 2020, consider the following statements:

1. It is organized by NITI Aayog.
2. It’s theme is “Be The Revival: India and a Better New World”.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: B

Q.1) What is the Tenth Schedule of Indian Constitution?Does the anti-defection law affect the ability of legislators to make decisions? Comment.

NEW! UPSC IAS COMPLETE NOTES