Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh won a controversial confidence motion in the state assembly through a voice vote on Monday. Chief Minister proved the majority of his government in the assembly. A trust motion was moved by the Chief Minister and after several hours of debate there was a voice vote which the Government won as declared by the speaker of the assembly. The opposition party created a massive rumpus in the assembly because the speaker did not take up their no-confidence motion. Congress party held media conference and questioned the voice vote victory of the Government. They said that Congress had given a 14 day notice for a no-confidence motion which takes precedence over other matters of the House. So taking up the trust vote of the ruling party has given rise to many controversies. The Congress had moved a no-confidence motion against the BJP-led Government in Manipur on 28th July.
On Monday the session of the assembly came to end with so much drama. The opposition opposed very strongly the decision of the speaker. Chief Minister of Manipur Biren Singh said that “By voice vote we won the trust vote. The speaker has done as per rules. The number of opposition MLAs were less.” On the other side Congress spokesperson Ningombam Meitei said that ‘today is the day of murder of democracy in Manipur.’ Former Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh alleged for poll code violations. He said that there is no rule of law in the State. Eight of the twenty four congress legislators did not take participation in the vote because two MLAs abstained from voting and six others submitted their resignation to the speaker. This abstinence and resignation leads to an easy win for the Government. The Manipur assembly has 53 members currently. The total strength of the assembly is 60. The victory of the BJP comes in Manipur after much political drama in the past two months. On 19th June this year Manipur speaker Y Khemchand had disqualified 4 members of the assembly under anti-defection law. And after the resignation of three legislators the strength of the assembly had decreased to 53. Let us see the law related to defection in India.
ANTI-DEFECTION LAWS IN INDIA
Defection leads to instability of the Government and affects the functioning and administration of the Government. The anti-defection law seeks to provide stability to the Government. The provision of anti-defection is given in the tenth schedule of the Constitution of India. The tenth schedule was inserted in the Constitution in 1985 in 52nd Amendment Act. This provision lays down the process by which legislators can be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding officer of the legislature based on a petition by another member of the House. As per this provision, a member is deemed to be defected if he either voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote. A member defying (abstaining or voting against) the whip of his party can be disqualified from the membership of the House. This law applies to the Parliament as well as state assemblies. This law does not specify a time period for the Presiding officer to decide on a disqualification plea. But this law allows a party to merge with or into another provided in case at least two-third of its legislators are in favour of the merger. In this case, neither the members who decided to merge nor the ones who stay with the original party will face disqualification. In the Year 2003 there was an amendment to the law. There was a provision according to which if there occurs a split in the original party and as a result of which one-third of the legislators of the party forms a separate group, they shall not be disqualified. This led to defection at large scale and hence this provision was deleted.
The Apex Court has interpreted anti-defection law many times. As per law a member is disqualified if he voluntarily gives up his membership. In the case of Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India [1994 AIR 1558], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of a formal resignation by the member, the giving up of membership can be inferred by his conduct.
In the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Ors [1992 SCR (1) 686], it was held by the Apex Court that decision of the Presiding officer is subject to judicial review. The Court also clarified that the 10th schedule is constitutionally valid. It does not infringe freedom of speech and expression and democratic rights of elected members.
Thus, the intention of the anti-defection law is to control political corruption and to strengthen the democratic values. The law intends to make the members of Parliament more responsible and loyal to the parties with whom they were associated at the time of election.
Rajeev Ranjan @ Samacharline
