"The anti-defection law was enacted to ensure stability in parliamentary democracy, yet its implementation has often weakened democratic accountability. ” In the light of the above

Introduction

• The Tenth Schedule (1985) was enacted to curb political defections and ensure stability in parliamentary democracy.
• However, its operation reveals a persistent tension between stability and democratic accountability.

Effectiveness of the Anti-Defection Law

Works (+)

• ✔ Curbs “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” phenomenon by penalizing frequent party-switching
• ✔ Ensures government stability, preventing sudden collapses due to defections
• ✔ Promotes party discipline, enabling coherent legislative functioning
• ✔ Maintains policy continuity, especially in coalition governments

Fails (−)

• ✖ Suppresses dissent and conscience vote, reducing legislators to mere party agents
• ✖ Strengthens high command dominance, weakening intra-party democracy
• ✖ Merger provision (2/3rd rule) is misused to legitimize mass defections
• ✖ Speaker’s role is often biased and marked by delays, undermining neutrality
• ✖ Weak judicial deterrence, as courts intervene only after prolonged litigation

Contradictions and Verdict

• While the law has enhanced political stability, it has diluted democratic accountability, turning representatives into mere “numbers” rather than deliberative actors.

• Thus, reforms are necessary:

  • Limit the scope of the whip to confidence motions and money bills
  • Establish an independent adjudicatory tribunal instead of the Speaker
  • Tighten the merger clause to prevent its misuse

• Overall, the Tenth Schedule achieves stability at the cost of democratic principles, necessitating calibrated reforms.