Articles
102 (2) and 191 (2) deals with anti-defection.The intention of the provision is
to check the corruption/horse trading in parliament/ to check the popular
phenomenon.
The
purpose, as is obvious, is to curb political defection by the legislators.
There are two grounds on which a member of a legislature can be disqualified.
· One,
if the member voluntarily gives up the membership of the party, he shall be
disqualified. Voluntarily giving up the membership is not the same as resigning
from a party. Even without resigning, a legislator can be disqualified if by
his conduct the Speaker/Chairman of the concerned House draws a reasonable
inference that the member has voluntarily given up the membership of his party.
· Second,
if a legislator votes in the House against the direction of his party and his
action is not condoned by his party, he can be disqualified. These are the two
grounds on which a legislator can be disqualified from being a member of the
House.
However,
there is an exception that was provided in the law to protect the legislators
from disqualification.
..
The 10th Schedule says that if there is a
merger between two political parties and two-thirds of the members of a
legislature party agree to the merger, they will not be disqualified.
Speaker/
chairman of the house is the authority to decide on defection cases. Speaker
sits as a tribunal while deciding on defection cases. All proceedings in
relation to any question on disqualification of a member of a House under this
Schedule are deemed to be proceedings in Parliament or in the Legislature of a
state. No court has any jurisdiction. However, the decision can be brought to
court after Kihoto Hollohan case of 1992.
Issue
:The Supreme Court on urged Parliament to take a call on setting up an
independent tribunal to “swiftly and impartially” decide on the
disqualification of lawmakers under the anti-defection law.
..
No comments:
Post a Comment