"Aaya Ram Gaya Ram" has influenced the Indian political system for a long time

Dr. Satyavan Saurabh *

Anti-defection law is a method of horse-trading rather than being effective in maintaining government stability. " MLAs or MPs are resigning to avoid the scope of anti-defection law. But such a provision should be made that if they voluntarily resign before the period for which they were elected, then they will not be eligible for election till that time. Will not be allowed to fight.

"Be it a big nationwide cause, it is a matter of ideals or it is a matter of many principles. Then it is fine, but after resigning without any reason, you are contesting the next election again. So this is technically correct. But in practice all these people are planting landmines in the law. Those who break any law find a way to break it, what has been broken here is being called resort culture."

Defection began with the expression "Aaya Ram Gaya Ram", which gained popularity in Indian politics after Haryana MLA Gaya Lal switched parties three times in a single day. This happened in 1967. Parliament used this case to justify the addition of the 10th Schedule to the Indian Constitution.

This law establishes the procedure for disqualifying MPs for defection by the presiding officer of the legislature in response to a petition by another member of the House. According to the law, if a politician voluntarily leaves his party or disobeys instructions from the party leadership on a vote in the House of Commons, he commits defection. The perception is that the MLA is violating the party whip by this behavior.

The purpose of the anti-defection bill is to keep the government stable by preventing MLAs from switching sides. Anti-defection law implemented democracy in India based on parties and numbers rather than debate and discussion.

It thus makes no distinction between dissent and defection, thereby weakening parliamentary debate on any scale. On the other hand, this law does not bind politicians to their political parties indefinitely. Under various circumstances, MLAs can change parties without fear of disqualification. This law allows a party to merge with another party if two-thirds of its members approve of it. In such a situation, no member is accused of defection. In other situations, if a person was elected as the President or Chairman and was forced to resign from his party. As a result, he may rejoin the party after leaving office.

There have been many incidents of abandonment in India. Many MLAs and MPs have changed parties. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act-2003 aimed to reduce the size of the Council of Ministers, prevent turncoats from entering public office, and reform the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

Earlier, the merger was defined as the defection of one-third of the elected members of a political party. After the amendment, it was reduced to at least two-thirds. The court also confirmed the Speaker's broad power in considering MLA disqualification cases.

Although the political instability caused by frequent and unholy allegiance changes on the part of the legislators of our country has reduced considerably due to the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, there is still a need for a more rational version of the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Some sitting MLAs in the Manipur administration recently defected to the opposition, creating political uncertainty in the state. This politics of defection is not unusual in Manipur; Recently, defection has also taken place in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Political defection by members of the legislature has long affected the Indian political system. The anti-defection law has suppressed the voice of elected representatives. Non-compliance with party discipline by legislators is a political problem and should be solved through greater internal party democracy and ways to develop party members. A part of the Constitution of India is against its basic spirit. It is the Tenth Schedule, which was added by the 52nd Amendment.

Passed by Parliament in 1985 to prevent political defection, it is commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law. Its purpose was to prevent MLAs elected on the ticket of one political party from changing their allegiance to another. Its objective was to bring political stability.

Since then, it has silenced the voices of our elected representatives, seriously damaged constitutional offices, and made a mockery of our democracy. The anti-defection law has failed to ensure stable governments for 37 years. Some recent examples can be cited. Despite these failures, there are calls for strengthening the anti-defection law rather than abandoning it.

The basic question is whether it is legally possible to prevent MLAs of one party from transferring their loyalty to another. A report said that apart from money, "greed for office played a major role in MLAs' decisions to switch parties." It reported that after the 1967 elections, of the 210 MLAs who defected in seven states, 116 became ministers in the governments they had helped form by their defection.

This raises the question of whether our representatives are responsible only for their political organization. Or do they have any responsibility to express the opinions of those who elected them? In India, the question of MLAs not following party discipline is a political issue, an issue between them and their political party.

If political parties want their members to toe the party line, their leadership must work hard to promote internal party democracy, dialogue, and development pathways for their members. The real question would be why the Constitution should come to the aid of political parties that cannot keep their members together.

This question assumes utmost importance as the anti-defection law continues to compromise the effective functioning of our legislatures.