top of page


Updated: Oct 12, 2022


Recently, the way politics and political parties are developing in our country, due to this, the politics of defection is developing very fast in front of us, some political experts believe, is there the end of politics or development here? For this, all of you have to first understand here why there is a change of party in politics And whether the purpose of this is in the interest of the country or not. Subhash Kashyap tried to understand this in his own words that the ease with which he leaves one party and joins another makes one thing very clear he gives more importance to any political theory or political ideology of any party. Do not give

Defection in the political sense means the joining of an elected person to a party other than the political party on whose ticket he has been elected or to vote against or by that party without renouncing his membership. Form a new team. This defection politics is called floor crossing in England.

In the House of Commons in England, the members of the opposing party and the government party sit face to face and if a member of any of them moves from one side to the other, he has to cross the middle path. Hence this process is called 'Floor Crossing'.

Similarly, in Nigeria, it is called Carpet Crossing because in Nigeria ruling party and the opposition have different carpets and a person has to change his carpet to switch sides. Defection has been termed by some scholars as Political Opportunism, Politics of Instability, Politics of Confusion, Politics of Deviation, and Politics of Political Turn cotism. ) also said.


Following are the definitions of defection

In the words of Jayaprakash Narayan, “Any member elected to a legislature who had received the secure election symbol of a political party, if he, after being elected, declares to break his association with that political party or to dislodge his faith in that political party. If it does, it should be treated as a defection, provided its action is not in accordance with the decision of the party concerned.

" In the words of Dr. Subhash Kashyap, " a legislator abandoning his own party, his independent platform, joining another party and forming a party or adopting independent status or voting against him in basic matters without renouncing his party's membership. To do is called change. "On the basis of the above definitions, it can be said that the following functions come in defection-

(i) If a person has been selected on the ticket of a particular party and has voluntarily joined another party by renouncing the membership of that party.

(ii) The person who contested the election as an independent has joined any party after winning.

(iii) If a person contesting the election on the ticket of a particular party becomes an independent after winning.

(iv) When a person contests the election on the ticket of any party but votes against the policies of his party in the House.

Events of Defection upto 1967

Incidents of defection in Indian politics were rare until the 1967 general elections. First of all, defection was encouraged by the Indian National Congress. He broke his Akali Dal's Gyani Kartar Singh, Sardar Swaran Singh, Sardar Hukm Singh, etc. by giving them the lure of a post. Congress from Jana Sangh Pt. After converting Moulichandra Sharma and Ashok Mehta of the Praja Socialist Party, he joined them.

In August 1958, 98 MLAs of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly met Chief Minister Dr. Expressing disbelief in Sampoornanand, he was forced to resign by bringing him to a minority vote. In 1962, the Governor of Madras (Chennai) Mr. Prakash invited Chakravarti Rajagopalachari to become the Chief Minister despite a minority vote, and 16 opposition members switched sides and joined the Congress and gave him a majority. On September 2, 1964, 15 Congress MLAs in Kerala switched from Congress to R. Shankar's cabinet collapsed. They formed their own governments in Rajasthan in 1952, in Orissa in 1957 by defection.

Events of Defection after 1967

After the general elections of 1967, the defection in India started happening so fast that it became a serious problem for politics. After the fourth general election - 1967, the political monopoly of the Congress party came to an end and the Congress did not get majority in 8 out of 16 states, these states were Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. In six of these states, the opposition parties formed joint governments on the basis of the minimum programmes.

In some states, the Congress party got a marginal majority and somehow formed the Congress ministries. Immediately after the elections, the Congress Party formed cabinets in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh, but they collapsed due to sabotage in the Congress and the opposition parties formed mixed governments. Initially, the opposition parties aimed to keep the Congress party out of power and decided to make a collective effort to bring down the states in which the Congress governments were in power. For this, defection was made a means, as a result of which non-Congress mixed governments were formed in 9 out of 17 states of the country. But these governments could not last long and soon they collapsed and President's rule was imposed in those states. Their state-wise details are as follows.

Haryana - In the general elections of 1967, Congress got 48 out of 81 seats and clearly, Bhagwat Dayal Sharma formed his cabinet. But a week later, in the election of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the candidate of the Congress Party was defeated by three votes. The dissatisfied Congress MLAs broke away from the Congress party and formed the New Haryana Dal. Congress party formed a United Front government with Naveen Haryana Dal but this time Rao Virendra Singh was made in place of Chief Minister Bhagwat Dayal Sharma, who was the leader of the Naveen Haryana Dal. Many members of Naveen Haryana Dal were given places in the cabinet. That legislature could not last long. During the tenure of 8 months of the Legislative Assembly, 31 Congress MLAs defected. One MLA changed the party five times. MLA Gayalal changed the party thrice in 15 days, due to which the slogan of 'Gaya Ram-Aaya Ram' became popular in politics. A leader Randhir Singh remarked that "It is a shame that Chief Minister Rao Virendra Singh is buying MLAs and each MLA is being lured with cash dowry as well as a ministerial post so that he becomes the Chief Minister. be able to stay

“Uttar Pradesh – In the fourth general elections, the Congress party could not get an absolute majority in Uttar Pradesh. Congress formed the cabinet with the help of some MLAs who left from other parties. Ch. Charan Singh was the MLA of the Congress party. He was insisting on the then Chief Minister Chandra Bhanu Gupta to include his 13 members in the cabinet, which the Chief Minister did not accept. As a result, Ch. Charan Singh announced the formation of a new party 'Jana Congress' and with it 17 MLAs of opposition. Joined in. Chandrabhanu Gupta's government became a monarchy in 18 days. Charan Singh formed the 'Bharatiya Kranti Dal' (BKD) a few days later. A few days later, he formed the government in the United Legislature Party (SVD). It also fell quickly due to internal cracks.President's rule was imposed in Uttar Pradesh.

Bihar - After the fourth general election, Bihar did not get a clear majority. From 1967 to 1969, six cabinets were formed and fell in the state. In the meantime, more than 200 incidents of defection took place and as a result President's rule was imposed.

Punjab After the fourth general election, seven non-Congress parties and independents formed a mixed government in Punjab. The Congress party and the opposition tried to demolish it. On November 1, 1967, under the leadership of Laxman Singh Gill, 17 MLAs left the front, which led to the collapse of the mixed government. Mr. Gill formed the government with the help of Congress, which lasted only about 9 months and President's rule was imposed in 1968. In the new elections held in February 1969, the Akali-Jana Sangh United Front formed the government which lasted till June 13, 1971.

Rajasthan- In the 1967 general elections, the Congress got 89 seats in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The number of Congress changed from opposition to 110. Sukhadia was made the Chief Minister. Congress encouraged defectors to join its party. Even after being accused of defectors, Sukhadia completed his term.

Madhya Pradesh - After the fourth general election, the Congress got an absolute majority and on March 8, 1967, D. P . Mishra formed the government. On 19 July, Govind Narayan Singh along with 35 of his MLAs defected, due to which the government of Mishra fell due to a minority vote. On 20 July, Govind Narayan Singh formed the United Front government with the opposition, which lasted till March 1969. Later Govind Narayan Singh rejoined the Congress party with his defectors and the Congress government was formed. West Bengal - After the fourth general election, Ajai Mukherjee, the leader of the Bangla Congress in West Bengal, formed a United Front government of fourteen parties, which could not last much. One of its constituents leader P. C . Ghosh withdrew from it along with 17 other members, which led to the fall of the United Front government. Later P. C . Ghosh formed a minority cabinet with the Congress and other defectors which fell more quickly and President's rule was imposed in the state. Karnataka - Due to defection, Karnataka Chief Minister Virendra Patil had to resign from his 34 months old government.

Gujrat- In Gujarat, Hitendra Desai resigned his resignation due to minority vote due to defection. According to the available data, in a period of nine months from March 1967 to December 1967, out of the total 3,447 members (excluding the members of Himachal Pradesh and Tripura) of the state legislatures, 314 members (which is about 99% of the total strength) ) changed sides. These included independent members who kept changing parties in the greed of political office or money. According to a survey, by April 1969, 350 members participated in about 1,000 incidents of defection. Among the defectors there were also some members who defected more than once. There is also a fact that the Congress benefited more in the defection that took place from 1957 to 1967. The number of members leaving the Congress in the defection that took place during this period was 98 while the number of those coming to the Congress was 419. The Congress suffered losses in the year 1967-68. During this period the number of members leaving the Congress was 175 and the number of those coming to the Congress was 139. This clearly indicates that till 1967 the defection was one-sided, after that it became two-way.

After 1977, the defection took a new form.

After 1977, the defection took a new form. Till now all the defections were done by one or a few MLAs but in 1977 and 1980 there were two incidents of defection by the entire government. In 1977, the Congress party was ruling in Sikkim during the Janata Party's rule at the center, but as soon as the Janata Party came to power at the center, the Sikkim government changed its allegiance in favor of "Janata Party" and declared it to be the Janata Party government. 1980. When the Congress (E) government was again formed at the center in the year 2011, the Sikkim government broke its ties with the Janata Party and changed its allegiance to the Congress party. Thus the Janata Party government again changed to the Congress government. Both the times the Chief Minister even after changing allegiance. Lendup Dorji remained the same.

Similarly, on January 22, 1980, the Janata Party government of Haryana changed its allegiance. Chief Minister Bhajan Lal joined the Congress party along with his 37 colleagues and the Janata Party government led by Bhajan Lal became the government of the Congress party. In July 1979, Morarji Desai had to resign at the Center due to defection in the Janata Party. After that Charan Singh formed his government with the help of other parties but he could not get confidence in the Parliament. The Karunakaran government of Kerala had to resign in 1982 due to defection. This defection game continues even today. Even after passing the anti-defection law, it is showing its effect despite the shortcomings of the law. In the last week of August 2003, due to the resignation of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, the BSP government fell and Mulayam Singh formed his government with the help of other parties. 37 BSP MLAs also changed their party from BSP and formed a new party and supported Mulayam Singh.

Causes of Defection

Following are the reasons for the change of political parties in India

1. Success of the Opposition Parties in the 1967 General Elections, 1967 The majority did not get and the majority of the Congress in the center also decreased. After the 1967 elections, due to the defection in Haryana, the government of Rao Virendra Singh was formed. In Punjab, under the leadership of Sardar Gurnam Singh, Akali Dal and Jan Sangh together formed the government. In Tamil Nadu Dr. M . The government of K was formed in Uttar Pradesh. Charan Singh formed the government with the help of Jan Sangh, Samyukta Samajwadi Dal and Bharatiya Kranti Dal. In West Bengal, the United Legislature Party government was formed under the leadership of Ajay Mukherjee. After 1967, the people realized that even a single Congress state can be broken.

2. No Stable Governments in the States - Defection was encouraged due to the absence of stable governments in the states. In the general elections of 1967, the situation was that no party got a clear majority and the Congress party or the opposition of some MLAs, whichever they got together, could form the government. Due to this defection, governments were formed in Bihar, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka and Gujarat. This game is still going on at present. In Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati's government fell in late August 2003, which was formed with the support of the BJP and the government was reduced to a minority as soon as the BJP's support was withdrawn. In early September 2003, Mulayam Singh's government was formed with the support of several parties, including 37 BSP MLAs.

3. Temptation of Ministry and Money - Due to no party getting a clear majority, it has become a situation that each party keeps competing to form its government. In such a situation, buying MLAs becomes like buying votes. This longing has arisen in the minds of the legislators that by joining the ruling party, they should get the ministership or whatever money they get. This reason is still in effect today. Mulayam Singh's 98-member cabinet in Uttar Pradesh in October 2003 is proof of this.

4. Lack of Leader of Great Personality with the Political Parties - When political parties lack such a leader with great personality, whose influence is widespread in the whole country, even then the party Change is encouraged. In the general elections of 1967, the Congress and the opposition did not have such an influential leader. Congress leader Smt. Indira Gandhi could not become famous due to the defeat of the Congress party in the 1967 elections and Ch. Charan Singh was the Dal-Badlu. He used to make alliances with Congress and sometimes with Jan Sangh, Swatantra Party and Samyukta Samajwadi Party. Rao Virendra Singh in Haryana, Mahamaya Prasad in Bihar and Ajay Mukherjee in West Bengal were not in a strong position. This reason is still in effect at present. Mayawati considers herself a leader of the Scheduled Castes, while Mulayam Singh, Atal Bihari Bajpayee or Sonia Gandhi at the center of the backward caste, has not been able to become the leader of such an influential personality that on his own strength, his party can get a clear majority in the Parliament. In the Thirteenth Lok Sabha in November 2002, the Bajpai government was formed with 22 parties.

5. Personal Ambitions of the Leaders of Political Parties - In the event of no party getting a clear majority, many legislators aspire to become ministers or chief ministers, and to fulfill it, the parties - The game of change continues. Aaya Ram - Gaya Ram continued even after the 1967 elections and continues to this day. After becoming the Chief Minister in September 2003, Mulayam Singh expanded his cabinet to 98 ministers, which is a record in the country. If 2 more ministers were included, then the record of making the first century cabinet in the country would have been created. It is a symbol of the ambition of the leaders.

6. Lack of Ideological Polarization In India, defection is encouraged due to lack of ideological polarisation. For example, after the 1967 elections, the opposition parties formed joint governments, but they differed so much about the implementation of economic, social and political programs that they could not work together for a long time and soon It was his downfall. At present, governments are formed by creating a minimum education program, but still they fall due to lack of ideological polarization. For example, the fall of the joint government of Mayawati (BSP) and Kalyan Singh (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh, which had to be chief ministers alternately for 6 months. Mayawati completed her 6-month term but as soon as Kalyan Singh's opportunity came, Mayawati broke the alliance.

7. Neutrality of the Public towards Defections One of the main reasons for defection was the indifference of the people towards defection. The people sympathized with the defectors and made them successful in the elections. For example, in Uttar Pradesh Ch. Charan Singh's party Bharatiya Kranti Dal (BKD) had great success in the mid-term elections of 1969. Similarly in Bihar, important members of the defectors got success in the mid-term elections. The result was that the leaders of various parties took the view that there was nothing wrong with the defection in the eyes of the people.

Some Controversial Cases of Defection

With the aim of preventing defection in India, on February 15, 1985, the 52nd Constitutional Amendment was included in Schedule 10 of the Constitution. But as soon as the anti-defection law came into force, its misuse started. Governments of Nagaland, Manipur, Goa, Meghalaya, Mizoram and some other states were toppled through defection. The words used in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution were interpreted differently by different presiding officers and conflicting judgments were given. Many members had to go to court. In some cases, the decisions of the presiding officers led to a conflict between the judiciary and the legislature. Following are some such controversies

In July 1990, 14 members of the Congress (I) party in Manipur separated and formed a new party named Manipur Congress. He asked the President for its recognition. Meanwhile, 7 out of 14 members were suspended. President Dr. H. Barobabu said that the remaining 7 members cannot form a new party because the Congress does not have one-third of the total strength of 26 in the House. His membership was terminated by the Speaker under the anti-defection law.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court quashed the order of Manipur Legislative Assembly Speaker disqualifying seven MLAs under anti-defection law and ordered that their salaries be paid. Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretary Shri Mani Lal Singh paid his salary. Enraged by him, the Speaker fired the secretary from his job. The Supreme Court held this unconstitutional and directed the secretary to be reinstated on the job and pay the salary. The Supreme Court ordered the Speaker to appear before the court. The Speaker said that he was not bound to appear before the Court as the Speaker. The Court clarified that when the Speaker exercises his power under the 10th Schedule, he remains under the jurisdiction of the Court. It is his administrative work which is separate from the functions of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Despite several orders of the court, the court directed him to appear by use of force, when he did not appear. Finally on March 24, 1993, the Speaker appeared in the court and filed an affidavit that he had complied with all the orders of the court and was ready to do so and expressed regret for the said incident. On this the court quashed the contempt proceedings against him. After the formation of the state of Mizoram, the government was formed under the leadership of Laldenga. After this nine members of the ruling party broke away from the party. The government fell. Here the Speaker came to know that one member was abroad, due to which the total number was being reduced by one-third. The Speaker terminated the membership of eight members under the anti-defection law. The dispute reached the Supreme Court.

Another incident happened in Nagaland. Chief Minister S. C . Twelve members of Zamir's team came out in one-third of the group. This group along with other groups decided to form a Joint Legislature Party. Mr. K. Ale . Chishti was considered a leader. Meanwhile, two members were suspended by the Congress General Secretary. The remaining number was reduced to less than one third and the Speaker announced the dissolution of their membership under the anti-defection law. The Governor asked the Speaker for reconsideration and on refusal, S. Yes . By sacking Jamir Sarkar. Ale . Chisti was invited to form the government.

After the anti-defection law was enacted, incidents of defection occurred at the center also. During the ninth Lok Sabha, P. P . The government fell quickly to Singh and Chandrashekhar. On November 5, 1990, when there was a split in the Janata Dal, out of the 58 members who broke away from the party, 25 members were immediately announced to be expelled from the party. The Speaker also declared him unaffiliated. It was said that the remaining 33 members are less than one-third of the total membership of the Janata Dal, so it cannot be considered a division of the party. Chandrashekhar formed the government of his party and got a majority in the house. All the members of his party were those who had been either expelled from the public and those who had been issued notices under the Anti-Defection Act as to why their membership should not be terminated. Almost all the ministers of the Chandrashekhar government used to come under the wraps of notices issued by Speaker Ravi Rai. But in the end the Speaker, by his decision, gave approval to the partition, giving the ruling party the benefit of doubt.

President Ravi Rai, while giving the decision on January 11, 1991, said that no evidence was found that the split in the Janata Dal occurred before the expulsion of 25 members, because there are many claims and counterclaims about it, but both the expulsion and the meeting of the separated constituents. has been challenged. So he decided that the benefit of doubt should be given to the members of this category. He said that all these members would be disqualified if he did not accept the partition before expulsion. Giving benefit of doubt to these 28 members, the petition filed against them was quashed. He also said that Partition is a one-time event, not an action of a few days. There was a split in the party. Therefore, the members who came after November 5, in which 5 were ministers, should be deprived of their membership.

In the context of the anti-defection law, the case of Ajit Singh's defection is also noteworthy. The Janata Dal expelled Ajit Singh in December 1991 and three other members - Satyapal Singh Yadav, Ra Singh Panwar and Rashid Masood in February 1992. After this, Rajnath Sonkar Shastri Ram Nihor Rai and two other members were expelled in the name of discipline in the party in July 1902. Ajit Singh and 19 other members demanded allotment of seats to sit separately from Janata Dal. These members claimed that they were a group and their membership was more than a third. Therefore, recognition should be given under the anti-defection law.

On August 7, 1992, President Shivraj Patil gave an interim decision to give seat to Ajit Singh and other 19 members to sit separately from the members of the party.The opposition member strongly opposed the interim case of the Speaker. Janata Dal President S. R . Bompai argued that these twenty members could not form a group as eight of them had already been suspended and the other four members were disqualified under the anti-defection law due to the party dip at the time of the no-confidence motion. Can be done. After taking the arguments of both the sides and taking the opinion of various parties, Speaker Patil gave the decision on June 1, 1993, saying that the constitutional status of a member within the House cannot be taken away by his expulsion from the political party. He disqualified 4 members of the Lok Sabha (Ram Sundar Das, Govind Chandra Munda, Ghulam Mohammad Khan, Ram Badan) from the membership of the Lok Sabha. He was found guilty of violating the party diyas on 17 July 1992. He recognized the remaining 16 members of the Janata Dal (A) as a separate faction. With the decision of the Speaker, the Janata Dal was formally partitioned in the Parliament on June 1, 1993, and the number of members of the Janata Dal (A) was reduced to 16.

On July 2, 1993, the Delhi High Court stayed the implementation of the decision to disqualify 4 Lok Sabha members of the Janata Dal (A) from the membership of the House under the Anti-Defection Act. 2. On August 1993, 7 MPs who broke away from the Janata Dal (A) joined the Congress unconditionally. These MPs had voted in protest in violation of the party VHP. In the opposite, the Janata Dal (A) MPs were condemned to be included in the Congress and alleged that due to the flaws of the anti-defection law, now collective defection has started instead of individual.

Defection played the role of an effective instrument in forming and saving the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh in 1997. In October 1996, no party got a clear majority in the mid-term elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, as a result of which the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party reached an agreement and their joint government was formed under the agreement. Both the above parties formed the government on the basis that the first 6. BSP's Chief Minister and 6 months BJP's Chief Minister As soon as they got into office, differences started between BJP and BSP, in which the main issue was of Harijan Act. The differences increased to such an extent that Mayawati announced her separation from the government and withdrawal of support. After that the Governor directed Kalyan Singh to prove the majority. On October 21, 1997, the session of the Legislative Assembly was convened. Keeping in view the danger of partition in Basaya, Mayawati issued VHP for BSP MLAs on 20 October 1997.

On October 21, 1997, the BSP was directly split in the Legislative Assembly and one-third of the total members formed a separate party under the leadership of Markandeya. Such a claim was presented by Markandey Chand, during the voting on the motion of confidence in the House, these BSP MLAs voted in favor of the Kalyan Singh government under the leadership of Markandey Chand and formed a new party in the name of the Democratic Bahujan Samaj Party. As a result, BSP Legislature Party leader Mayawati and BSP MLA R. Of . Chaudhary presented 12 separate petitions and requested the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that Vansh Narayan Singh, Markandey Chand, Yashwant Singh, Chaudhary Narendra Singh, Shivendra Singh, Sardar Singh, Prem Prakash Singh, Sukhpal Pandey, Radheshyam Pandey, Raja Gajanfar Ali Bhagwan Singh Shakya, Dr. Membership of the Legislative Assembly of Ram Asre Singh Kushwaha etc. should be abolished because these people violated the anti-defection law mentioned in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The above MLAs did not follow the party whip and • their number is also less than one-third of the total number of BSP MLAs. The members of the Legislative Assembly accused of defection made it clear that the leader of the BSP Legislature Party, Mayawati, before coming to the House on October 21, 1997, directed the members of the BSP not to allow the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and the House. Do not allow the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to introduce the motion of trust vote in the House by beating and creating a ruckus in the meeting. Therefore, the whip issued by Mayawati, the leader of the Legislature Party on October 20, 1997, automatically lapsed because on October 21, 1997, before coming to the House, she contradicts the above instructions and her whip.

Writ filed in Supreme Court by BSP. The Hon'ble Court, not giving any decision in the said matter, directed the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, on 23 March 1998, Mayawati and R. Of . Disposing of all the petitions filed by Chaudhary, it was decided that the so-called whip of October 20, 1997 is not a legal whip under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and these petitions are the members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Defection). does not fulfill the conditions of sub-rule (4) (5) of Rule-7 of the Rules 1987.

Therefore, all the members accused of defection are not guilty of this under Section 2 (1) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and their membership of the Legislative Assembly cannot be terminated. The allegations leveled against him are baseless and baseless. All the accused members will be known in the Legislative Assembly as the members of the Jantantrik Bahujan Samaj Party.

Results of Defection

Some of the consequences of defection in Indian politics can be seen as follows:

(i) Due to defection, the political monopoly of the Congress Party, which had been in place since 1952, ended in 1967 and Congress dissidents tried to form governments with parties.

(ii) Defection hampered the administrative reforms in the country and halted the progress of the country because the legislators were not worried about the progress of the country but their ministerial position or money.

(iii) Defection led to the formation of joint governments, due to which there could not be unity of ideas in them and the governments kept falling and forming again and again.

(iv) The bureaucracy increased its influence due to defection as governments were afraid to take quick and clear decisions.

(v) Due to defection, the Chief Minister was compelled to include many members in the cabinet because defection of MLAs was possible due to non-availability of ministerial post. This is the reason that in 1997, Kalyan Singh made a 93-member cabinet and Mulayam Singh made a 98-member cabinet in October 2003.

(vi) There was a split in the political parties.

(vii) Due to defection, opportunism and opportunism increased due to which politics became principleless.

Efforts to Control the Defection Due to defection, the governments of many states in the country started falling and forming, which led to political instability. Defection was said to be a huge betrayal of the voters. Considering it as fatal to parliamentary democracy, a demand arose to stop it. To stop this defection, on August 11, 1968, Congress Member of Parliament Bankat Subbaiah moved a non-government bill in the Lok Sabha. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 8 December 1968. In February 1969, the Lok Sabha appointed a committee, headed by the then Home Minister, Shri Yashwant Rao Balwant Rao Chavan. There were also 28 other members in this committee. This committee gave its report to the House on 18 February 1969, which had the following suggestions.

(i) All political parties together should prepare such a code of conduct, which is acceptable to all. If an MLA or Member of Parliament wants to change from one party to another party, then the other party should not give his membership to him until he resigns from the membership of the House and contests the election again on the ticket of that party.

(ii) Each party should give tickets only to such candidates who have deep allegiance to that party. 1

(iii) The defectors should be debarred from contesting elections for a fixed period.

(iv) The defectors should resign from their party and contest elections according to the program and policies of the other party.

(v) The size of the councils of ministers should be limited so that the defectors do not have the greed of ministership. (vi) The Chavan Committee recommended that the tenure of ministers should be fixed at a maximum of 10 years so that new persons would get an opportunity to become ministers.

(vii) Party discipline should be strengthened and no party should give refuge to any dissatisfied faction of the other party.

(viii) defeat the defection leaders in the elections.

(ix) The Prime Minister or the Chief Minister should be taken from the Popular House only.

(x) In case of excessive defection, the Chief Minister should have the right to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

(xi) The defecting members should be debarred from being appointed to any office, for example, ministerial, chairman or vice-president, for one year from the date of defection.

There was a intense difference of opinion among the members on the suggestions of Chavan Committee. The Congress (Organization) said that the only way to prevent defection is to make it necessary for such a member to resign from the membership of the Legislature and contest the election again. Praja Socialist Party said that voters should be given the right to recall the MLAs. Some parties said that the recommendation of the Chavan Committee that the defection members should not be given the post of minister for one year, would not be practical in any way because such members would be given monetary benefits in cash or in any other way. can be brought along.

According to the report of the Chavan Committee, when a bill was prepared and sent to the Ministry of Law, it presented many of the following legal difficulties in it.

(i) The proposed Bill is an Article of the Constitution of India. 19 (1) (C) which describes fundamental rights and the right of people to form institutions.

(ii) This bill conflicts with Article 102 of the Constitution of India which describes the qualifications of the members of Parliament.

(iii) This Bill is a part of the Indian Constitution. 191 in which qualifications have been given for membership of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. On May 16, 1973, the 32nd Amendment Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Home Minister Umashankar Dixit to prevent defection,

which contained the following provisions.

(i) Articles of the Constitution. By amendment in 75 it was arranged that the Prime Minister would be elected from the Lower House.

(ii) Anu. 102 was amended to provide that if a legislator voluntarily leaves the political party of which he was elected as a candidate or the political party in which he joined after being elected as an independent candidate, Then his membership of Parliament or Legislature will end.

(iii) If a member remains absent without the permission of his party in the voting held in the legislature or votes against the party's hip, then it will also be treated as a defection and the membership of that member will be terminated.

(iv) If a member of the Legislature breaks ties with the organization of his origin because of a split in his party, he will not be treated as a defection.

The above Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of 60 members on 13th December, 1973. The committee did not submit its report even after a lapse of more than 3 years and the Lok Sabha was dissolved in 1977. So this bill also came to an end. On 26 September 1969, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a 'Defection Prohibition Act' containing the following provisions

(a) If any MLA resigns from the party, his membership of the Legislative Assembly will also be terminated. (b) If any MLA from his party votes against the whip or does not take part in the voting, his membership will be terminated.

This law was challenged in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, the High Court declared this law valid. After the Janata Party came to power in 1977, once again an attempt was made to stop the defection. A bill to this effect was introduced by the Janata Party government in the Lok Sabha on 28 August 1978, which was later withdrawn, as only some members of the Janata Party opposed it. In the first session of the Eighth Lok Sabha on January 17, 1985, the President said in his address that the government would introduce a bill to prevent defection. On January 24, 1985, the Law Minister introduced a bill to this effect in the form of the 52nd amendment of the Constitution. On January 30, 1985, this bill was passed by the Lok Sabha after passing all the phases in a single day and the next day it was also passed by the Rajya Sabha. After getting assent by the President on February 15, 1985, this bill became the 52nd Amendment Act of the Constitution. Schedule 10 was added to the constitution by this act. It has been provided by this amendment that the membership of a member of Parliament or State Legislature will be terminated in the following circumstances:

(i) If a member voluntarily resigns from the party on whose ticket he was elected.

(ii) If a member votes against the party's party in the House or is absent from the House at the time of voting without the prior permission of his party. Provided that the membership of such member shall not be affected. If within 15 days of being absent in the House or voting against HIP, the party concerned forgives the above conduct of that member.

(iii) If an independent member joins any political party after the election.

(iv) If a nominated member, after taking the oath of membership, joins any political party, then his membership will come to an end.

Exception - Some exceptions to this are the following: (1) Partition - If 1/3 or more members of a legislature party or parliament have separated from that party and formed a new party.

(ii) Parties merger - If two or more legislature parties decide to merge with 2/3 majority of their total membership.

(iii) for the post of Speaker, when a member of Parliament, Legislative Assembly or Rajya Sabha resigns from his party for the sake of fairness immediately before his election to the post of Speaker/Deputy Speaker/Chairman/Deputy Chairman. After his removal from the above post, he will be The Speaker of the House shall decide whether an MLA is disqualified for membership of the Legislature under the above rule or not. The decision of the Speaker in this matter will be final and the court will not have the right to interfere in it. For the implementation of this Act, the Speaker of the House concerned shall have the power to make rules and bye-laws with the approval of the House. On November 12, 1991, in respect of the petitions of several disqualified MLAs of Nagaland, Gujarat, Meghalaya, Manipur, gave an important decision regarding anti-defection law. Although the Supreme Court upheld the anti-defection law but declared Article 7 of the 10th Schedule to be unconstitutional. In this part, the decision of the Speaker regarding the disqualification of the members was considered final. The Supreme Court was of the view that while considering the disqualification of members under the Anti-Defection Act, the position of the Speaker is only like that of a Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court and the Supreme Court can review the decisions taken by him.

The shortcomings in the Anti-Defection Act can be seen as follows:

(i) Defection of 1/3 of the members can be stopped by this law but defection of more than 1/3 of the members cannot be prevented. For example, in Haryana in 1980, Bhajan Lal along with 37 of his MLAs decided to switch from the Janata Party to the Congress.

(ii) It does not have effective control on the conduct of independent members because independent members play games from outside in forming and toppling the government without taking membership of any party.

(iii) This Act also does not apply to those MLAs who support the party's hip in the House. But outside the house are involved in anti-party activities. For example, in 1987 V. P . Members of Singh's Jan Morcha outside the House. P . Criticizing Singh openly.

(iv) The system of termination of membership for violation of party island is an assault on the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech.

(v) The behavior of the Speaker of the House is not as impartial as that of the Speaker of the General Assembly of England, he remains a member of his party even after becoming the Speaker. Therefore, he can give political advantage to his party by his decision.

(vi) It is not clear in this Act what will happen if the MP or MLA is disfellowshipped by his party.

(vii) This Act does not effectively prevent defection. In September 2003, 37 BSP MLAs in Uttar Pradesh changed their party and formed a new party and extended support to Mulayam Singh.


Some suggestions to prevent defection can be given as follows:

(i) Decrease the number of political parties

(ii) Contesting the election of defectors was banned for the next 5 years.

(iii)Boycott by defectors.

(iv) No political party should give place to any defector in its party.

(v) By respecting the sentiments of the voters of their constituency, the MLAs and MPs betray them.

(vi) A law should be passed to abolish the membership of the MLA / MP who is a defector.

(vii) Those parties which lure money or position to break the MLAs/MPs of other parties, they should be given place in the black list.

(viii) Strict anti-defection law should be made.

(ix) The MPs and MLAs should practice political morality.

(x) Defection should be declared a political crime.

(xi) The strength of the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 1/10 of the members of the Legislative Assembly/Lok Sabha.

The Lok Sabha gave its assent to the 97th Amendment Bill of the Constitution on 16 December and the Rajya Sabha on 18 December 2003 to strengthen the anti-defection laws. This amendment became effective after the President's signature on it. Accordingly, a provision has been made to abolish the membership of the elected representative of the defection.

Along with this, there is also a system to ban the Jumbo cabinet. Now the limit has been fixed to make a maximum of 12 members in small states and 15% in big states. In the current law, it is necessary to have at least one-third of the members for defection.

It has been provided in the new law that if an elected representative leaves his party and joins any other party, then his membership will be terminated immediately and he will not be able to get any office of profit.

He will have to be re-elected on the symbol of the new party. If an elected representative is suspended or expelled by a political party, then in that case this rule will not apply.

2022 - Maharashtra politics Defection

The recent uproar in Maharashtra politics has once again ignited the issue of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution i.e. Anti-Defection Act. The habit of people's representatives switching sides is politically and socially quite bad and unacceptable in a democracy where a representative is elected on the basis of the mandate and belief in the political party he is representing and certainly his image.

This constant practice of resort government where the members of the assembly are taken as prisoners and kept in a luxurious hotel or resort somewhere inaccessible, where no one, including their family members, can reach them. This is happening continuously in our country for the last few years which is a misuse of the mandate of the common man and voters. It paints an image where it shows that the elected members have no allegiance to the party and the electorate.

The Supreme Court in "Kihoto Holohan v. Zachilu et al. 1992" has clearly stated that judicial review may not be available at a stage prior to the presentation of a decision by the Speaker or Speaker. The Constitutional Court cannot judicially review disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, i.e. the anti-defection law of the Constitution, unless the Speaker or Speaker of the House makes or renders a final decision on merit.

The Supreme Court has indicated to refer the Uddhav Thackeray-Eknath Shinde dispute to a larger bench, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court said on Wednesday that the Uddhav Thackeray-Eknath Shinde dispute can be referred to a larger bench. Is. A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli with Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions of Shiv Sena party regarding disqualification proceedings, election of speaker, recognition of party whip and floor test for Shinde government in Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was hearing six petitions filed by the concerned petitioners.

CJI NV Ramana orally remarked during the hearing that matters where important constitutional issues arise may require a decision by a larger bench. "Some of the issues are important constitutional issues which should be resolved," the CJI said. The CJI said, "Some issues, the consequences of removing Para 3 (of the Tenth Schedule) and the absence of a divided concept, whether the leader of a minority party has the right to disqualify the leader of the party, these are some of the issues. We can decide how to proceed." However, the CJI clarified that he was not constituting the bench immediately and the parties should come up with preliminary issues first.

The CJI clarified, "I have not passed the order to refer the larger bench, I am contemplating it." The matter has now been listed for discussion on preliminary issues on August 1. The status quo order passed by the court on July 11, adjourning the disqualification proceedings, continues. The order said, "After hearing the advocates, it has been agreed that some issues may also be referred to a larger Bench, if necessary. Keeping this in view, to enable the parties to formulate the issues, So, let them file it by next Wednesday." What happened in court today? Earlier today, CJI Ramana said he had some doubts about the consequences of removing Para 3 from the Tenth Schedule, which allowed for an internal-party split. Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule was removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act in 2003. The CJI clarified that he was not expressing any views and only wanted to clear his doubts.

He said that after the removal of Para 3, the concept of division is not recognized. He asked that when there is no division, what will be the consequences! Appearing in the petitions filed by the Uddhav Thakrey faction, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Dr AM Singhvi argued that since the opposition group has violated the Chief Whip, they are ineligible as per the Tenth Schedule. He also said that the protection under Para 4 of the Schedule is not available to him as he has not merged with any other political party.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, argued that the Tenth Schedule does not stifle internal-party democracy. Raising voice within the party without crossing the Lakshman Rekha does not amount to defection. Salve submitted that there is no need to look into para 3 and the issue is confined to para 2 only, which according to him is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances attracting any disqualification. Further, “You must voluntarily give up party membership or violate the party whip by voting against it under paragraph 2. “Voluntarily giving up party membership” has been interpreted.

If a member goes to the governor and says that the opposition has to form the government, it is organized to voluntarily give up the membership. If after the Chief Minister resigns, and another government takes oath, it is not defection. Can we imagine that a man who cannot get the support of 20 MLAs should be reinstated as Chief Minister?

I have the right to raise my voice against the leader as an intrinsic part of democracy. Raising voice is not a disqualification. Para 3 is a non-issue." Pending petitions before the Supreme Court:

1. The petition filed by rebel Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde challenging the disqualification notice issued by the Deputy Speaker and by Bharat Gogavale and 14 other Shiv Sena MLAs seeks to restrain the Deputy Speaker from taking any action in the disqualification petition, The Deputy Speaker will decide.

2. The petition filed by Shiv Sena Chief Whip Sunil Prabhu has challenged the Maharashtra Governor's direction to the Chief Minister to prove the majority of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government.

3. The petition, filed by Sunil Prabhu, a whip appointed by the Uddhav Thackeray-led camp, challenges the action of the newly elected Maharashtra Assembly Speaker recognizing a whip named by the Eknath Shinde group as the Chief Whip of the Shiv Sena.

4. Petition filed by Shiv Sena General Secretary Subhash Desai criticizing the decision of Governor of Maharashtra to invite Eknath Shinde as Chief Minister of Maharashtra and further proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly held on 03.07.2022 and 04.07.2022 Challenged as illegal.

After the political drama in Maharashtra and rebelling against the MVA government, Eknath Shinde has been made the Chief Minister. The announcement of Shinde's name surprised everyone amidst the discussion of Devendra Fadnavis's name. However, if we look at the bigger picture, the Bharatiya Janata Party has killed not two but three victims with one arrow.

bottom of page