Defeating Anti-Defection Law BJP Style. Time For Corrective Measures

The formation of government by winning over rebels or greedy lawmakers to resign is the new escape route from anti-defection law adopted successfully by the BJP in Madhya Pradesh and earlier in Karnataka. BJP was so desperate to grab the power in MP that govt was formed amid complete lock down.

Both in the case of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, arms twisting efforts to unseat the elected governments were made right from the day the respective governments came into power with a razor thin majority. The anti-defection law binds legislators to obey the whip of the party and if he violates, he can be disqualified. However, the law allows a party or legislator to merge with or into another party provided that at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger. In such a scenario, neither the members who decide to merge, nor the ones who stay with the original party will face disqualification.

As in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, BJP couldn't manage to split the Congress with enough legislators, it found a way out. Power-greedy and rebel legislators were made to resign so that BJP could enjoy the majority. Obviously, such legislators wouldn't oblige unless they get adequately rewarded. So, its clear trading and clearly means legislators are traded like commodities. And this trading not only defeat the very spirit of law but is insult to people's mandate. The anti-defection law was sought to prevent such political defections by way of reward of office or other similar considerations.

The very purpose of anti-defection law is to provide a stable government by ensuring that legislators do not switch sides even by resigning to topple the elected government. However, this law hasn't visualized how a ruling party could defeat its spirit by "targeted defections" as were engineered in MP and Karnataka. Such a situation calls for immediate corrective measures. Its time, we update and fine-tune the anti-defection law as to tighten such loopholes that allow our faceless "law makers" to be traded.

(Chander Sharma)