Question 49 from UPSC CSE 2022 - Polity & Governanc e

Question

With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:
1. The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.
2. The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

IASCODEX · Accepted Answer

Correct Option: B. 2 only

Strategy: Carefully read the specific claim about the time-frame for decision-making under the anti-defection law. Recognize that the law is silent on this, which makes Statement 2 correct. For Statement 1, identify the misstatement--nominated legislators are allowed to join a party within six months, not prohibited. This reveals Statement 1 as factually wrong, leading to its elimination and the selection of option B.

Key Info: The anti-defection law in India is contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, inserted by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. It aims to prevent political defections motivated by the lure of office or similar considerations and applies to both Parliament and State Legislatures.

## Disqualification
*   Members of political parties can be disqualified if they:
    *   Voluntarily give up membership of their party.
    *   Disobey the directives of the party leadership on a vote (whip) without permission and if not condoned within 15 days.
*   Independent members are disqualified if they join any political party after election.
*   Nominated members can join any political party within six months of taking their seat in the House. Defecting after six months leads to disqualification.

## Exceptions
Exemptions apply in cases of:
*   Party mergers, requiring at least two-thirds of legislators to agree.
*   Individuals elected as Speaker/Presiding Officer who resign from their party for impartiality.

## Presiding Officer Role
The Speaker or Chairman decides questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. There is no statutory time-frame for this decision, which can lead to possible delays and strategic political maneuvering. The Supreme Court has clarified that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review, but only after being rendered.

## Landmark Judgments
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule but allowed for judicial review of the Presiding Officer's decisions. The law was further refined in later cases regarding its scope and conduct.

## Purpose
The law aims to stabilize governments, discourage opportunistic switches, and preserve party integrity in legislatures.

IASCODEX · Answer

Option A: 1 only

IASCODEX · Answer

Option C: Both 1 and 2

IASCODEX · Answer

Option D: Neither 1 nor 2