2025, Vol. 7, Issue 10, Part B

Author(s): Monica Madaan and Arryan Mohanty

Abstract: The act of disowning one's family or association is known as defection. This discussion pertains to elected representatives who change their political affiliation after becoming candidates on a particular party's ticket. These modifications are frequently the result of more advantageous proposals, often in the form of financial incentives from other parties. It is regarded as a breach of public trust with the founding political party and an even more profound betrayal of the electorate, as candidates are elected based on what their party values and has promised, changing their affiliation after an election breaks this foundation, which voters believed was crucial. While the anti-defection law was implemented to prevent the immoral practice of legislators switching sides for personal gain, this type of behaviour persists even today. Thus, the disqualification mechanism is ineffective mainly because it depends on the political alignment of the authority that issues its decision. Although the schedule has some limitations, it is essential to review its provisions carefully to identify areas where it fails to meet those requirements. As per the Indian constitution, the Speaker is a constitutionally appointed official and must maintain high standards of integrity. Because of this prestigious position, the Speaker was given discretion in making choices under the Tenth Schedule. Nevertheless, it has been observed in recent times that certain elected officials can bypass the law. Court proceedings have become more frequent in challenging the Speaker's rulings, often due to concerns of a lack of impartiality and dissatisfaction with the outcomes. This paper focuses on the Speaker's role in deciding disqualification matters and explores the relationship between the Anti-Defection Law and Administrative Law. Additionally, it examines the ongoing debate on whether the Speaker's decisions should be subject to judicial scrutiny, particularly considering the separation of powers doctrine and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It also points out the critical role that the Speaker assumes in fulfilling quasi-judicial functions, which raises questions about whether these duties are impartial, given their dual status as a political figure. In addition, it is discussed that the Speaker's dual responsibilities as both a partisan leader and presiding over disqualification proceedings can lead to biased decisions that could undermine public faith in the legislative process. To counteract concerns, the paper reviews proposals by the Dinesh Goswami Committee and the 170th Report of the Law Commission of India, which propose transferring disqualification authority to the President or Governor, acting on the recommendation of an independent body. The paper proposes a balanced strategy that preserves and enhances the Speaker's constitutional duties while strengthening judicial oversight to promote transparency and democratic governance.

DOI: 10.33545/26646021.2025.v7.i10b.721

Pages: 166-176 | Views: 91 | Downloads: 11

Download Full Article: Click Here