Maharashtra Speaker’s Decision Raises Constitutional Concerns Over Anti-Defection Law

Maharashtra Speaker’s Decision Raises Constitutional Concerns Over Anti-Defection Law

In a controversial ruling, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker Rahul Narvekar has refused to disqualify 16 MLAs from the Eknath Shinde faction, declaring it as the legitimate Shiv Sena. This decision has raised serious constitutional concerns, challenging the principles of the anti-defection law enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

The anti-defection law, aimed at curbing political defections, designates the Speaker as the adjudicating authority. However, the inherent flaw in the system lies in expecting a politically appointed Speaker to act impartially as a tribunal. The Supreme Court, acknowledging this issue in a 2020 judgment, recommended transferring such matters to an unbiased tribunal.

The recent decision by Speaker Narvekar overlooks foundational principles of the Tenth Schedule. According to Explanation (a), a legislator belongs to the political party that nominated them. This critical aspect is pivotal in determining defection. Moreover, the law recognizes only a merger as a defense against disqualification, not a split. The Shinde faction has not merged with another party, remaining an independent group.

The Speaker’s circular logic, equating a legislative majority with the ‘real’ political party, contradicts Supreme Court directives. The Court emphasized that the legislature party has no independent existence, and the power to appoint a whip lies with the political party. This ruling raises concerns about the potential hijacking of an original party by a legislative wing if a majority decides to move away, undermining the essence of the anti-defection law.

The decision also conflicts with the Supreme Court’s declaration that a legislative party cannot claim independence from the political party. Recognizing Shinde’s group as the original party solely based on a legislative majority violates constitutional principles. The circular logic employed by the Speaker negates the Tenth Schedule’s intent, giving credence to defections.

This ruling highlights the need for reevaluating the anti-defection law and shifting adjudicatory powers from politically appointed Speakers to impartial tribunals or High Courts. Such reforms are crucial to preserving the spirit of the Constitution and preventing subversions that undermine the principles of the anti-defection law.