Resignation dramas to pull down governments must stop

IN PERSPECTIVE

Successful democratic systems across the world are characterised by equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in the election process, transparent and fair elections, and stability of the elected government. But democratically-elected state governments in India are frequently falling due to defections or resignation of elected representatives, induced either by personal ambition or due to the decision of coalition parties to pull out. Though the advertised cause of such decisions is ‘ideological differences,’ the unstated motives are never revealed. The frequent fall of governments result in administrative inefficiency, political corruption and increased cost to the exchequer for holding frequent elections.

Political defections in state legislatures is as old as our democracy itself. Elected state governments in the past were destabilised basically in three ways: (1) due to the decision of elected individual member either to defect from one party to another or to vote against the party instruction in the state Assembly; (2) a few of the elected members of a political party splitting from it, either to form a separate party or to merge with another political party; and (3) a coalition party pulling out of the government or a party supporting a minority government from outside withdrawing its support. The first two problems were significantly controlled, for a time, by the 52nd Amendment in 1985 and by the 91st Amendment to the Constitution in 2003. The third problem remains unresolved.

In 1950, 23 MLAs defected from Congress in Uttar Pradesh and formed Jana Congress. In 1953, the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) leader Prakasam defected to Congress to form the government in Andhra Pradesh. In 1956, Thanu Pillai from the Travancore-Cochin state switched sides from PSP to Congress, which facilitated the formation of a Congress government. In Mysore state, in 1956, the then Chief Minister Kengal Hanumanthaiah was forced to step down when 21 elected representatives of his party brought a no-confidence motion against him. In 1959, 98 MLAs openly defied the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Sampurnanand, marking the downfall of his government.

New ways

Undeterred by the curbs imposed by the 52nd and 91st Amendments, political parties and elected representatives have found new ways to destabilise governments. On May 23, 2018, the Congress and JD(S) parties in Karnataka formed a coalition government. Thereafter, neither coalition partner pulled out from the government nor did either of them split, nor even did members of either party defect.

But still, the government was reduced to a minority on July 23, 2019, because 17 MLAs from both the parties ‘voluntarily’ resigned from their membership of the Assembly for reasons unknown, which resulted in the fall of the JD(S)-Congress government and the formation of the BJP government.

By-elections were held in December 2019, and all the members who had resigned from Congress and JD(S) and had thus help the BJP form the government were fielded as BJP candidates; 12 won the by-elections, two were elected to the Legislative Council and 10 out those 14 were inducted as ministers in the BJP government.

In Madhya Pradesh, the Congress party, with the support of two BSP members and one SP member, formed its government after winning 114 out of 230 seats in the Assembly election in November-December 2018. But on March 10, 2020, 22 elected representatives of Congress, including six ministers in the Kamal Nath government, resigned from the state Assembly for unknown reasons, resulting in the fall of the Congress government and installation of the current BJP government. The resignations of the MLAs were accepted by the Speaker. They all joined the BJP subsequently to contest the by-election as its candidates.

On June 17, 2020, the BJP-led coalition government in Manipur received a jolt when three of its members resigned and nine members from smaller parties withdrew support, thereby reducing the government to minority. The Congress majority government in Rajasthan is in crisis since July 12 due to a group of its MLAs, led by Sachin Pilot, who was Deputy Chief Minister in the Ashok Gehlot government, becoming rebels.

The logic

The logic is simple. When a certain number of MLAs of the ruling party resign from the Assembly, the strength of the ruling party gets reduced. The Opposition party, which had won fewer seats in the election, becomes the majority party and gets to form the government. There is no remedy either in the Constitution of India or in the Representation of People Act, 1951, to regulate such destabilising behaviour of elected representatives.

The law does not explain why a member elected for a term of five years is not made ineligible for re-election if he or she resigns from the Assembly. Even if he fails to win the by-election, he can still become a minister by getting nominated to the Assembly or Council or can hold any other important post, like that of chairman of a government board.

The way forward

Even Parliament may not have imagined that elected governments can be brought down by ‘voluntary’ resignation of the elected representatives from the ruling party. Hence, such resignations by MLAs to destabilise a government was not included as a ground for disqualification either in the 52nd or in the 91st Amendment.

The right to contest election is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right. Hence, it is fair and reasonable to regulate the ‘voluntary’ resignation of elected members by making them ineligible to contest any election or to hold any government position at least for a period of five years from the date of resignation. They should also be made ineligible to become nominated members of the Assembly or Legislative Council.

(The writer is a political analyst)