IN A RECENT SIGNIFICANT development towards establishing constitutional accountability, the Supreme Court indicated that the Speakers that the Speakers adjudicate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule within a reasonable and fixed timeframe. The remark, primarily addressed to the long-pending petitions in the Telangana Legislative Assembly, comes amidst an ongoing debate over the misuse of procedural discretion by Speakers to delay decisions on defections under the Tenth Schedule. This judicial intervention also gains significance considering the recent political developments in Telangana where the disqualification of rebel Bharat Rashtra Samithi (‘BRS’) MLAs, who joined the Congress, remains unresolved.
Together, these developments point to a deeper institutional issue, wherein a lack of political will has affected the spirit of the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule. At the same time, it also provides an opportunity to re-examine both the strengths and limitations of the anti-defection law and its implementation.
Political defections have plagued India and several of its states, including Telangana, which has seen mass defections in recent years. Such political defections violated the Tenth Schedule, which contains the anti-defection law that aims to curb this practice. The anti-defection law, which was inserted through the 52nd Amendment, is designed to prevent political defections prompted by the lure of office, material benefits, or any other considerations.
