For online class registration please visit our website www.saraswatiias.com
For demo our Application can be downloaded using the link below
[ Ссылка ]
If any Query please mail us admin@saraswatiias.com
You may also contact us @ 9899156495
About the institute [ Ссылка ]
Elections in a democratic country allow the people to assert their desire; political defections occurring between elections undermine that assertive act and thus the expressed will of the people. Defections were common in India even prior to the country's independence. Beginning around 1960, the rise of coalition politics increased the incidence of defections as elected representatives sought to occupy a berth in the cabinet of ministers. An extreme example occurred in 1967 when the legislator Gaya Lal changed his allegiance three times in a single day, and gave rise to the infamous expression Aaya Ram Gaya Ram ("Ram has come, Ram has gone").
Between 1957 and 1967, the Congress (I) party emerged as the sole beneficiary of defections. It lost 98 of its legislators but gained 419, whilst those who left other parties and who did not then join Congress (I) formed separate new parties with the aim of exerting power in the future through coalition government, rather than joining established governments. This situation gave Congress (I) a strong hold of power. In the 1967 elections, approximately 3,500 members were elected to legislative assemblies of various states and union territories; out of those elected representatives, around 550 subsequently defected from their parent parties, and some politicians crossed the floor more than once.
To tackle the scourge of political defection, during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1967 a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Y. B. Chavan. This committee submitted a report in 1968 which led to a first attempt to submit an anti-defection bill in Parliament. Although the opposition was supportive of the bill, the Government, then led by Indira Gandhi, referred it for consideration by a Joint Select Committee; it did not emerge from committee before all other legislative proposals were voided by subsequent elections.
1977–79 was one of the crucial periods in Indian politics when the first-ever national non-Congress Government, led by Morarji Desai, was driven out of power due to the defection of 76 parliamentarians. This caused political uncertainty until 1979, when Gandhi was elected by a clear majority. There was a definite trend in the political landscape of India during the 1970-80s. Whenever there was a Congress-led Government at the center, the regional governments fell due to the defection of non-Congress elected representatives. Then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Virendra Patil, called this trend a "goldrush". Though corruption was a global phenomenon, the Gandhi period saw the disruptive politics of defection become rampant in India.
With rising public opinion for an anti-defection law, immediately after securing a clear majority in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi proposed the new anti-defection bill in the Parliament. After marathon debates, both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha unanimously approved the bill on 30 and 31 January 1985, respectively. The bill received the President's approval on 15 February 1985 and the act came into effect on 18 March 1985. The law laid out the process for disqualifying an elected member for the remaining term, who defected either by resigning or by defying the party leadership and being absent on a crucial vote. However, the law allowed mergers and splits of political parties, allowing splits in the party by one-third of its members and merger (joining another party) by two-thirds of other party members. Experts believed defections should not be viewed in terms of numbers alone and should be seen in the context of how such political defections damage the people's mandate. But Ashoke Sen justified the act of allowing mass defections by terming it as freeing the legislators from "chains of obscurantism and orthodox politics". Recently, Sachin Pilot and his MLAs (from Congress' Rajasthan constituency) moved to the high court and challenged the anti-defection law; stating that the provision should not jeopardize the fundamental freedom of speech and expression of a member of the house.They have also demanded the clause 2(1)(a), to be declared ultra vires (outside the scope) of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
