Supreme Court Examines Anti-Defection Law Loophole: Notice to Centre on Sibal's Plea
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea filed by independent Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, seeking a reconsideration of how the anti-defection law is interpreted. The case challenges the provision that allows legislators to avoid disqualification by claiming a merger with another political party under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued a notice to the Central government, observing that several issues raised in the plea require attention from Parliament. The court noted that the Tenth Schedule, which governs defection, was enacted by Parliament and that it is for the legislature to devise any mechanism for its amendment.
Mr. Sibal argued that the current interpretation has "huge repercussions on our polity", as it could allow a minority party to become a majority or a majority to become a minority through orchestrated mergers. He emphasised that the matter is of urgent public importance, especially in the context of recent instances where Members of Parliament from the Aam Aadmi Party, Trinamool Congress, and Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) joined the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and other parties by invoking the merger provision.
The Bench observed that the plea involves constitutional questions and tagged it with a pending case related to the defection of MLAs in Goa. Mr. Sibal had filed the plea in his personal capacity, seeking a clear interpretation of paragraph four of the Tenth Schedule, which deals with mergers. He had earlier sought an urgent listing, stating that the matter concerns whether the composition of Parliament can be altered in the manner currently happening.
The Tenth Schedule was introduced in 1985 to prevent political defections by providing for disqualification of legislators who voluntarily give up party membership or vote against party directions. However, an exception allows disqualification to be avoided if a merger occurs with another party, provided at least two-thirds of the members agree. Critics argue that this loophole has been exploited to bypass the law's intent.
The court's notice to the Centre sets the stage for a detailed hearing, with implications for the stability of legislative majorities and the integrity of representative democracy. The matter is expected to be heard in the coming weeks.
