Previous Year Question
With reference to Anti-defection Law in India, consider the following statements.
The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.
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?
Only 1
Only 2
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
Correct Answer: B
Detailed Solution
Statement 1 is incorrect. Under paragraph 2(3) of the Tenth Schedule, a nominated member becomes disqualified if the member joins a political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which the member takes their seat in the House.
This means that a nominated member may join a political party during the initial six-month period after taking the seat without being disqualified merely on that ground. The statement reverses this rule by claiming that the member cannot join a party within six months. Therefore, Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct. Under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, a question regarding a member’s disqualification on the ground of defection is decided by the Chairman or Speaker of the House. However, the Tenth Schedule does not prescribe a definite time limit within which the presiding officer must decide the case.
Other important provisions of the Anti-defection Law include:
An elected member of a political party may be disqualified for voluntarily giving up the membership of that party.
Disqualification may also follow if the member votes or abstains from voting contrary to the party’s direction and the conduct is not condoned by the party within 15 days.
An independently elected member is disqualified if the member joins a political party after the election.
The merger exception requires the support of at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party.
The earlier protection for a “split” involving one-third of the members was removed by the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003.
The decision of the presiding officer is not completely immune from judicial review.