India’s Anti-Defection Law was born out of a  political crisis, but its deeper purpose was constitutional. When the Tenth Schedule was introduced in 1985, Parliament was responding to the disturbing spectacle of elected representatives changing political loyalties for office, money or personal advancement. Governments could be made and unmade through political bargaining. “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” became a metaphor for the degradation of parliamentary democracy.Four decades later, the forms of political defection may have changed, but the underlying challenge remains. Individual defections, mass resignations, engineered realignments and political mergers continue to raise a fundamental question: who owns the political mandate—the legislator, the political party or the people?The answer must be clear: the mandate belongs to the people.The Tenth Schedule must therefore be understood not merely as an Anti-Defection Law but as a constitutional instrument intended to protect the sanctity of representative democracy.

WHAT THE TENTH SCHEDULE REALLY MEANSThe central purpose of the Tenth Schedule is to prevent an elected representative from securing a mandate on one political platform and then frustrating that mandate through opportunistic defection.Paragraph 2 provides for disqualification where a member voluntarily gives up membership of a political party, or votes or abstains from voting contrary to a direction issued by the party, subject to the provisions of the Schedule.But the Tenth Schedule was never intended to abolish political dissent.This distinction is fundamental. A parliamentary democracy cannot function without debate, disagreement and deliberation. An elected representative is not simply a number in a party’s legislative arithmetic. He or she is also accountable to constituents and bound by the constitutional oath.If every disagreement with the party leadership is treated as defection, Parliament risks becoming an institution of numerical obedience rather than democratic deliberation.The constitutional objective should therefore be to prevent unprincipled and opportunistic defection, not legitimate dissent.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCEThe Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu remains central to the constitutional understanding of the Tenth Schedule. The Court upheld its basic framework while making clear that decisions of the Speaker or Chairman are subject to judicial review. It also rejected the attempt to completely exclude the jurisdiction of........

© Greater Kashmir