SYLLABUS SECTION: GS II (POLITY AND GOVERNANCE)
WHY IN THE NEWS?
Recently, Law Minister says in-house mechanism sufficient to deal with objectionable remarks made by judicial officers or a judge. Anti-defection law encouraged group defections to bring down the strength of an Assembly and facilitate a government change.
MORE DETAILS:
- Thus, the law is seen ineffective in ensuring stability of the elective government
- Meaning of the term ‘merger’ in anti-defection law is ambiguous.
- Legislators interpreted for themselves the term ‘merger’ to mean the merger of two thirds of legislators and that the merger of their original party is not necessary.
- Experts believe that if there is no merger of the original party, then these dissidents cannot claim any exception from disqualification no matter whether strength is.
- Speaker or chairpersons of the legislatures makes the final decision on defection.
- However, this power is subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohon Vs Zachilhu, 1992).
- Law does not provide a time-frame within which Presiding officers has to decide on anti-defection case.
ANTI DEFECTION:
- It was introduce in 1985 with a view to curb the tendency among legislators to switch loyalties from one party to another and facilitate the toppling of regimes and formation of new ones.
- Anti-defection law provided for the disqualification of legislators belonging to a political party if they voluntarily gave up membership of their party or defied whip of their party by voting contrary to its directions.
- However, if two-thirds of the members agree to a merger with another party, they will not be disqualified.
Read more:Â UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS
SOURCE: THE HINDU