Examine the challenges and concerns associated with the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) in the Indian Constitution. Suggest reforms to address these issues and evaluate the role of judicial review in ensuring the law’s effectiveness. (17-01-2024)

·         Merger Ambiguity Favors Interests.

·         Silent Law on Expulsions.

·         Voluntary Membership Lacks Clarity.

·         Rule 6 Raises Speaker Concerns.

·         Rule 7 Limits Judicial Power.

·         Rule 2 Poses Obedience Challenges.

·         External Adjudicatory Body Empowerment.

·         Presidential/Governorial Involvement Consideration.

·         Permanent Tribunal Establishment.

Judicial Review:

·         Keshavananda Affirms Fundamental Judicial Review.

·         Ravi S Naik: Procedural Aspects Immune.

·         Kihoto Hollohon: Validated Law, State Ratification.

·         Rajendra Singh Rana: Allows Judicial Review.

·         Merger Issues: Ambiguity in the two-thirds rule for party mergers creates loopholes, potentially favoring party interests over ideological reasons.

·         Expulsion Challenges: The law is silent on party expulsions, leading to anomalies for disciplined members expelled by the party.

·         Voluntary Membership Upheaval: Lack of clarity on acts constituting voluntary membership gives room for interpretation, causing issues.

·         Speaker’s Extensive Powers: Rule 6 grants extensive power to the Speaker, raising concerns over impartiality, with no set time limit for decisions.

·         Limited Judicial Review: Rule 7 restricts court jurisdiction, limiting the judiciary’s power despite calls for comprehensive judicial review.

·         Party Obedience Dilemma: Rule 2 restricts members to party whip, posing challenges to legislators’ freedom and conflicting with democratic principles.

Suggestions:

·         Empower an external adjudicatory body, as proposed by the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), moving the adjudication process outside the house.

·         Consider the Election Commission’s suggestion, recommending the President/Governor’s involvement in deciding on the Tenth Schedule with advice from the Election Commission.

·         Establish a permanent tribunal, as recommended by the Supreme Court, dedicated to defection cases, headed by a retired judge.

Judicial Review of 10th Schedule:

·         While Keshavananda Bharati affirmed judicial review as fundamental, Ravi S Naik v. Union of India considered procedural aspects immune from scrutiny.

·         Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu validated the law but required state ratification for certain provisions. The Speaker’s role was deemed tribunal-like, subject to judicial review.

·         Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya allowed judicial review when the Speaker neglects duties under the Tenth Schedule, reinforcing constitutional duty.