<p>Defections are a serious threat to the party system in the country and the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/democracy">democratic</a> process. The inability of the system to effectively deal with defections is a more serious threat.</p>.<p>The problem often comes to public attention when mass defections or defections by small groups or individual legislators, which can influence the formation of a government or can topple one, take place.</p>.<p>Usually, defectors have their way because it is after a lot of planning that defections take place. The party that benefits from the defections and the legislators who defect do enough legal and logistical groundwork to ensure that the defectors do not come to grief.</p>.<p>The legal measures that are in place to counter the defections and to penalise them are not implemented effectively. At the heart of the problem<br> is the role of the Speaker, who should, under the anti-defection law, decide whether a legislator’s act of defection would invite punishment by way of disqualification. </p>.<p>The matter was again in focus last week when the Supreme Court used strong words while dealing with a petition that challenged the delay on the part of the Telangana Assembly Speaker in deciding the cases of 10 legislators of the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) who had crossed over to the Congress last year.</p>.Karnataka politics set for big shake-up.<p>The MLAs joined the Congress in March last year, but it was only in January this year that their cases were notified by the Speaker. </p>.<p>A straight and simple interpretation of the law would have resulted <br>in their disqualification. It is unrealistic to assume that there would be an early decision.</p>.<p>Sometimes, the term of the legislature expires before the Speaker takes a decision and the decision becomes infructuous. In other cases, the Speaker takes a patently wrong decision that allows the defectors to get away. This is because the Speaker is from the ruling party and acts to protect the interests of the party, instead of acting as an impartial arbiter as envisaged under the law. During the tenure of the previous BRS government, defections from the Congress to that party were not acted upon.</p>.<p>Hearing the BRS petition, which sought a timely decision by the Speaker, the court said that it was not “powerless” if the Speaker did not take a decision. The court put it bluntly: “If the Speaker does not at all act, then the courts in this country, which not only have a power but also a duty as guardians of the Constitution, would be powerless?”</p>.<p>The first disqualification petition was filed on March 18, 2024, followed by two other such pleas on April 2 and April 8 last year. A single bench of the Telangana High Court had last year issued a directive for a schedule to be fixed within four weeks.</p>.<p>The High Court’s division bench endorsed the contention that the Speaker’s powers to decide on disqualification petitions should not be subject to judicial interference. It allowed the Speaker “reasonable time” to make a decision. This has been challenged in the Supreme Court. </p>.<p>The Supreme Court used strong words when it remarked: “So, since there is no decision in the present case, the high court could not have interfered with and therefore, this court also should tie its hands away and look at the naked dance of democracy?” Justice B R Gavai said, noting that the courts cannot tell a Speaker how to decide, but could tell the Speaker to take a decision within a reasonable period.</p>.<p>The court asked: “When a particular constitutional provision has been made with a particular aim and objective, should courts permit that to be frustrated?’’ “Reasonable time’’ can be interpreted in many ways, and Speakers have political reasons to give it the meaning they want. </p>.<p>The situation is similar to the Governors not taking decisions on bills passed by the legislature. Just as in the case of bills, the Supreme Court has told Speakers in the past to take decisions on defections within a reasonable period. But they have not done so.</p>.<p>Speakers have delayed their decisions on defection cases in states like Manipur, Maharashtra and elsewhere. In 2020, the court had asked Parliament to amend the Constitution to provide for an independent panel, instead of the Speaker, to be appointed for taking decisions in defection cases. Parliament has not done it.</p>.<p>If the court forces the hand of the Speaker in Telangana, as it did in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, to act in the cases pending before him, it will promote the cause of justice and constitutional morality. </p>.<p>The court invoked its special powers under Article 142 in the case relating to the Governors’ assent for bills passed by the legislature. </p>.<p>The court has set a deadline of three months even for the President to take a decision on bills referred to her. The judgment tells all constitutional functionaries not to give in to political considerations but be guided by the spirit of the Constitution.</p>.<p>Both the Governor and the Speaker are constitutional authorities who have been found wanting in discharging their responsibilities. The court can set timelines for the Speaker’s decision under Article 142 so that decisions in defection cases are taken within the prescribed time in all cases, present and future.</p><p>Speakers have given various untenable reasons and excuses in the past to delay such decisions even when the courts have told them to take early or even time-bound decisions. Cases have moved from a single bench and division bench of high courts to the Supreme Court, further delaying decisions. </p>.<p>The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial authority when he takes a decision under the 10th Schedule. The court will be within its powers to issue a directive under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice” in defection cases. </p>.<p>It is true that the Speaker is protected by the Assembly while the Governor is not, but exceptional problems call for exceptional solutions. The court cannot interfere with a defection case when it is under the Speaker’s consideration, but once the Speaker takes a decision it becomes justiciable.</p>.<p>The anti-defection law was defective in many ways and it has weakened and become ineffective over the years. The law’s provisions are now being used as a shield for defections. It is for the court to plug its biggest loophole. </p>.<p><em>(The writer is a former associate editor and editorial advisor of Deccan Herald)</em></p>
<p>Defections are a serious threat to the party system in the country and the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/democracy">democratic</a> process. The inability of the system to effectively deal with defections is a more serious threat.</p>.<p>The problem often comes to public attention when mass defections or defections by small groups or individual legislators, which can influence the formation of a government or can topple one, take place.</p>.<p>Usually, defectors have their way because it is after a lot of planning that defections take place. The party that benefits from the defections and the legislators who defect do enough legal and logistical groundwork to ensure that the defectors do not come to grief.</p>.<p>The legal measures that are in place to counter the defections and to penalise them are not implemented effectively. At the heart of the problem<br> is the role of the Speaker, who should, under the anti-defection law, decide whether a legislator’s act of defection would invite punishment by way of disqualification. </p>.<p>The matter was again in focus last week when the Supreme Court used strong words while dealing with a petition that challenged the delay on the part of the Telangana Assembly Speaker in deciding the cases of 10 legislators of the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) who had crossed over to the Congress last year.</p>.Karnataka politics set for big shake-up.<p>The MLAs joined the Congress in March last year, but it was only in January this year that their cases were notified by the Speaker. </p>.<p>A straight and simple interpretation of the law would have resulted <br>in their disqualification. It is unrealistic to assume that there would be an early decision.</p>.<p>Sometimes, the term of the legislature expires before the Speaker takes a decision and the decision becomes infructuous. In other cases, the Speaker takes a patently wrong decision that allows the defectors to get away. This is because the Speaker is from the ruling party and acts to protect the interests of the party, instead of acting as an impartial arbiter as envisaged under the law. During the tenure of the previous BRS government, defections from the Congress to that party were not acted upon.</p>.<p>Hearing the BRS petition, which sought a timely decision by the Speaker, the court said that it was not “powerless” if the Speaker did not take a decision. The court put it bluntly: “If the Speaker does not at all act, then the courts in this country, which not only have a power but also a duty as guardians of the Constitution, would be powerless?”</p>.<p>The first disqualification petition was filed on March 18, 2024, followed by two other such pleas on April 2 and April 8 last year. A single bench of the Telangana High Court had last year issued a directive for a schedule to be fixed within four weeks.</p>.<p>The High Court’s division bench endorsed the contention that the Speaker’s powers to decide on disqualification petitions should not be subject to judicial interference. It allowed the Speaker “reasonable time” to make a decision. This has been challenged in the Supreme Court. </p>.<p>The Supreme Court used strong words when it remarked: “So, since there is no decision in the present case, the high court could not have interfered with and therefore, this court also should tie its hands away and look at the naked dance of democracy?” Justice B R Gavai said, noting that the courts cannot tell a Speaker how to decide, but could tell the Speaker to take a decision within a reasonable period.</p>.<p>The court asked: “When a particular constitutional provision has been made with a particular aim and objective, should courts permit that to be frustrated?’’ “Reasonable time’’ can be interpreted in many ways, and Speakers have political reasons to give it the meaning they want. </p>.<p>The situation is similar to the Governors not taking decisions on bills passed by the legislature. Just as in the case of bills, the Supreme Court has told Speakers in the past to take decisions on defections within a reasonable period. But they have not done so.</p>.<p>Speakers have delayed their decisions on defection cases in states like Manipur, Maharashtra and elsewhere. In 2020, the court had asked Parliament to amend the Constitution to provide for an independent panel, instead of the Speaker, to be appointed for taking decisions in defection cases. Parliament has not done it.</p>.<p>If the court forces the hand of the Speaker in Telangana, as it did in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, to act in the cases pending before him, it will promote the cause of justice and constitutional morality. </p>.<p>The court invoked its special powers under Article 142 in the case relating to the Governors’ assent for bills passed by the legislature. </p>.<p>The court has set a deadline of three months even for the President to take a decision on bills referred to her. The judgment tells all constitutional functionaries not to give in to political considerations but be guided by the spirit of the Constitution.</p>.<p>Both the Governor and the Speaker are constitutional authorities who have been found wanting in discharging their responsibilities. The court can set timelines for the Speaker’s decision under Article 142 so that decisions in defection cases are taken within the prescribed time in all cases, present and future.</p><p>Speakers have given various untenable reasons and excuses in the past to delay such decisions even when the courts have told them to take early or even time-bound decisions. Cases have moved from a single bench and division bench of high courts to the Supreme Court, further delaying decisions. </p>.<p>The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial authority when he takes a decision under the 10th Schedule. The court will be within its powers to issue a directive under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice” in defection cases. </p>.<p>It is true that the Speaker is protected by the Assembly while the Governor is not, but exceptional problems call for exceptional solutions. The court cannot interfere with a defection case when it is under the Speaker’s consideration, but once the Speaker takes a decision it becomes justiciable.</p>.<p>The anti-defection law was defective in many ways and it has weakened and become ineffective over the years. The law’s provisions are now being used as a shield for defections. It is for the court to plug its biggest loophole. </p>.<p><em>(The writer is a former associate editor and editorial advisor of Deccan Herald)</em></p>
