Supreme Court Urges Parliament To Revisit Provisions Allowing Speakers To Decide Disqualification Under Anti-Defection Law
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has once again called on Parliament to review the constitutional framework that allows Speakers of legislative bodies to decide on disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, also known as the Anti-Defection Law. The Court raised concerns about the politicization and delays in these decisions, indicating that the current system is insufficient to uphold democratic principles. This follows several cases where Speakers have intentionally delayed or abused their power for partisan purposes.
Anti-Defection Law
The Anti-Defection Law, implemented through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985, aims to prevent political defections and ensure the stability of governments by penalizing elected representatives who switch parties after being elected on a particular party’s ticket. This law is part of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and is applicable to both Parliament and State Legislatures. It specifies the circumstances under which an MP or MLA can be disqualified, such as voluntarily relinquishing party membership or voting against party instructions without authorization. Importantly, the authority to decide on disqualification rests with the Speaker or Chairman of the relevant legislature.
Abuse of this Law
Multiple recent instances have exposed the systemic abuse of this provision. In Maharashtra (2022–23), after a major split within the Shiv Sena, disqualification petitions against rebel MLAs remained pending for months while a new coalition government was formed with their support. Similarly, in Karnataka (2019) and Manipur (2020), Speakers sat on disqualification petitions even as political equations changed dramatically. These delays allow defectors to escape consequences, influence governance, and in some cases, even topple elected governments. The result is a serious erosion of public trust in the democratic process.
Observation of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that delays in disqualification proceedings undermine the Anti-Defection Law’s purpose. It emphasized that lawmakers facing defection allegations should not be able to remain in office indefinitely because of the Speaker’s inaction. The Court pointed out that such delays enable political opportunism to take precedence over constitutional principles and distort the people’s will. It also highlighted the importance of prompt adjudication in upholding the moral integrity of representative democracy.
Proposed changes
The changes which had been proposed are –
• To set a fixed timeline for disposing of disqualification petitions.
• To transferring adjudicatory power from the Speaker to an independent tribunal or the Election Commission.
• Allowing the early judicial intervention in cases of undue delay.
• To enact the constitutional amendment to implement these changes formally.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the dire need for reform of the Anti-Defection Law. By giving thedisqualification authority to biased Speakers undermines democracy whereas a neutral, time-limited process is crucial to guarantee the just and efficient implementation of the law.
