The Anti-Defection Law: Maintaining Accountability in Parliamentary Democracy

Two recent Supreme Court of India decisions have focused emphasis on the constitutional framework that governs the relationship between the executive, legislature, and political parties. While the decisions were unanimous, their implementation is contradictory. The Delhi decision emphasised the need of civil service accountability to the elected government, whereas the Maharashtra case defended party leadership control over legislators, compromising the foundations of parliamentary democracy.

The Delhi Case: Highlighting the Importance of Accountability

  • Accountability is essential: The case highlights the importance of accountability in a democratic government. It reaffirms the idea that a government elected by the people must respond to them through a three-tiered chain of command: civil service officers reporting to ministers, ministers reporting to the legislature, and the legislature reporting to the electorate.
  • Distribution of Power: The decision explains the division of powers between the Delhi administration, led by the Chief Minister, and the central government-appointed Lieutenant Governor. It stipulates that the elected government of Delhi should have control and authority over civil services, emphasising the democratic ideal of decentralisation of power.
  • Constitutional rules and Democratic Values: The case emphasises the importance of adhering to constitutional rules and delineating powers in a Union Territory such as Delhi. It respects parliamentary democracy’s principles, emphasising the significance of a government that is accountable to the people it serves.
  • Strengthening Democratic Institutions: The decision emphasises the role of institutions in sustaining the Constitution’s democratic values. It establishes a precedent for future cases and underscores the role of institutions in maintaining a vibrant democratic system by ensuring accountability and appropriately allocating powers.

What is triple chain of accountability?

  • Civil Service Officers to Ministers: The first link in the chain is civil service officers’ accountability to Ministers. Civil servants are in charge of enforcing government policies and performing administrative duties. They are accountable to the Ministers, who supervise and direct their work.
  • Ministers’ Accountability to the Legislature: The second link in the chain is Ministers’ Accountability to the Legislature. Ministers must account to the legislature, which represents the people’s voice, for their decisions, actions, and policies. They are supposed to participate in discussions, answer questions, introduce laws, and seek approval or support from elected representatives for government activities.
  • Legislators to the People: The third link in the chain is the legislature’s accountability to the people. The legislature’s elected representatives are responsible to the people who elected them through the electoral process. Legislators are required to represent their constituents’ interests and concerns, to strive for their welfare, and to ensure that their views are heard in the decision-making process.

Case of Maharashtra: Undermining the Triple Accountability Chain

  • Tenth Schedule Interpretation: The dispute centres with the interpretation and application of the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule, which deals with anti-defection legislation. The decision focuses on the distinction between the legislature party and the political party, clarifying the competence of the legislature to issue enforceable directives to members.
  • Party Leadership Role: The decision confirms the political party leadership’s influence over the legislature. It states that the person in charge of the political party has the authority to give orders to party members, including MLAs/MPs, and that failure to comply can result in disqualification.
  • Limitation on politicians’ Accountability: The decision raises issues about politicians’ accountability to their constituents. By preserving the authority of political party leaders, it potentially lowers legislators’ accountability to the electorate while emphasising their accountability solely to the party that fielded them in the election.
  • Triple Chain of responsibility: The judgement departs from the triple chain of responsibility concepts articulated in the Delhi case. It implies that legislators should follow the political party’s instructions, potentially undermining the legislature’s daily review of the administration and diminishing the government’s accountability to the people.
  • Re-evaluation: The judgement underlines the necessity to re-evaluate the anti-defection law and its conformity with parliamentary democracy principles. It raises concerns that the anti-defection law violates the fundamental structure of the Constitution, requiring a larger bench to investigate the matter.

Contradictory Conclusions: The Anti-Defection Law Problem

  • The inconsistent results reached as a result of the anti-defection law’s implementation in both cases:
  • Position on the Constitution: While the Delhi case emphasises civil service accountability to the Delhi government and preserves the triple chain of command, the Maharashtra case emphasises the power of political party leadership over lawmakers, as mandated by the Tenth Schedule.
  • Incompatibility with Parliamentary Democracy: The Maharashtra case raises concerns regarding the Tenth Schedule’s anti-defection statute and its compatible with the system underlying parliamentary democracy. The assumption in the anti-defection law that any vote against the party’s direction is a betrayal of the democratic mandate runs counter to the principle of representative democracy.
  • Legislative Accountability: The Maharashtra decision strengthens the authority of political party leaders, meaning that legislators are primarily answerable to the party that nominated them, rather than to the people. This shatters the three-tiered accountability system.
  • Impact on Daily review: The Maharashtra judgment’s emphasis on party directives limits the legislature’s daily review of the government. If legislators from the majority party are constrained by party directives, the meaning of debates, resolutions, and no-confidence motions is diminished because the party leadership controls the votes on every subject, ensuring the government’s triumph.
  • The anti-defection statute believes that voters prioritise party affiliation over other variables like as candidates’ criminal records, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications. However, voter decisions in elections frequently violate this premise, as evidenced by legislators who won by-elections after switching parties.

Way forward

  • Re-evaluation of the Anti-Defection statute: It is critical to revisit the anti-defection statute and assess its consistency with parliamentary democracy’s fundamental principles. A careful study by the Supreme Court’s broader Bench can assist determine if the law breaches the core structure of the Constitution.
  • Examining the Tenth Schedule: The Tenth Schedule, which is the foundation of the anti-defection statute, should be scrutinised. This involves analysing its impact on politicians’ accountability to their constituents and determining whether it is consistent with representative democracy principles.
  • Legislative Accountability: Efforts should be made to strengthen legislators’ accountability to the electorate. This can be accomplished by requiring legislators to prioritise constituent interests over party mandates, building a closer bond between legislators and the people they represent.
  • Promoting Informed Voting: Stressing the importance of informed voting might assist voters in making decisions based on reasons other than party affiliation. By providing detailed information about candidates, such as their track records, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications, voters would be able to make more educated decisions during elections.
  • Balancing Party Discipline and Individual Freedom: It is critical for legislators to strike a balance between party discipline and individual freedom. Mechanisms should be in place to encourage healthy debate, dissent, and legislators’ capacity to vote based on their own judgement while yet respecting party affiliations.
  • Improving Parliamentary Deliberations and Oversight: Efforts should be made to strengthen legislators’ roles in holding the government responsible. This can be accomplished through vigorous legislative discussions, efficient question-and-answer sessions, and a close examination of government actions and policies.

@the end

The inconsistency between the Delhi and Maharashtra cases highlights the need to reconsider the anti-defection law. A bigger Bench should reconsider the law’s conformity with the Constitution’s basic framework, reiterating the importance of accountability in parliamentary democracy. This step is critical in reestablishing the balance between party allegiance and the duty of representatives to serve their constituents and maintain democratic norms.

And get notified everytime we publish a new blog post.