Senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi on April 10th criticized the existing mechanism under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India that empowers the Speaker of a legislative house to decide on whether a legislator should be disqualified for defection to another political party.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Wednesday, scrutinized the prevailing mechanisms outlined in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India. This provision confers upon the Speaker of a legislative house the authority to adjudicate whether a legislator warrants disqualification for defecting to another political party. Singhvi, a former Rajya Sabha member of Parliament (MP), articulated his belief that expecting Speakers to remain impartial in such decisions was inherently impractical.
He expressed his candid opinion, stating,
“The whole system is flawed and the 10th schedule should be scrapped, but delay (on deciding disqualification petitions) is natural.”
Singhvi highlighted a prevalent issue wherein disqualification petitions often languish unresolved by the Speaker for extended periods, sometimes exceeding six months. He raised concerns about the inherent bias when the Speaker, invariably affiliated with a particular political party, is tasked with making decisions that demand objectivity.
“If the Speaker of the same party is deciding these, how can there be objectivity?”
-he questioned, advocating for the elimination of the persona designata of the 10th Schedule, particularly in instances where the Speaker is indisposed.
Singhvi proposed a pre-determined selection process for the Speaker, agreed upon by all political parties, to ensure impartiality. However, he conceded that achieving consensus among political factions on this matter would be a Herculean task.
Furthermore, Singhvi underscored a notable distinction between Indian political dynamics and those of other democracies, particularly regarding voter behavior towards defectors.
“You cannot legislate morality,”
-he remarked, emphasizing how Indian voters often reward legislators who switch parties. Drawing a comparison with England, Singhvi pointed out that defections are less prevalent in other democracies due to the electorate’s tendency to penalize such actions.
“10th Schedule and Speaker (now) is absolutely not worth the paper it is written on,”
-he concluded, highlighting the systemic flaws that perpetuate political defections in India.
These remarks were made during a discussion organized by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, themed “Decoding Defection,” and moderated by the think tank’s founder and Research Director, Arghya Sengupta. Singhvi commenced the discourse with a touch of humor, reflecting on his personal experiences as a victim of intra-party defections within the Indian National Congress, the political party to which he belongs.
Notably, Singhvi’s comments come in the wake of his recent defeat in the Rajya Sabha elections from Himachal Pradesh, where six Congress legislators defected and cross-voted for the rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate.
In his address, Singhvi also delved into the powers wielded by the Whip in a parliamentary democracy. While acknowledging the significance of party discipline and organization, he argued against the indiscriminate issuance of whips.
“It is time we reform the whip. I believe in being reformist, not abolitionist… I am very open about this. For everything and anything you issue a whip, you have to be shown, say three-line whips,”
-he remarked, highlighting the need for moderation in utilizing whips. Singhvi expressed concern that excessive use of whips stifles creativity among parliamentarians, impeding constructive debates and voting processes.
“Creative parliamentarians are stultified by the whip. They are not seen because we perceive they only throw chairs,”
-he lamented, advocating for a more balanced approach.
Singhvi attributed the recent surge in defection instances to the weakening of institutional frameworks.
“In the last 4-5 years, it has happened because institutions are deflated and devalued. It succeeds because of lack of institutional independence and integrity,”
-he observed, pointing to institutional vulnerabilities as a contributing factor to the proliferation of defections.
Addressing the 2023 split of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) into two factions, one led by Sharad Pawar and another by his nephew, Ajit Pawar, Singhvi criticized the Election Commission of India‘s reliance on the legislative party test to ascertain the genuine party. This criticism underscores broader concerns about the efficacy and impartiality of institutional mechanisms tasked with resolving intra-party disputes and maintaining political integrity.
Singhvi further criticized the use of the legislative party test, arguing that it was flawed because the legislative party, unlike the organizational wing of the original party, often comprises members who have defected. This critique underscores the complexity of intra-party dynamics and the limitations of using legislative arrangements as determinants of party authenticity.
Singhvi’s critique extended to the Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving party splits. He particularly highlighted the Court’s decision regarding the Shiv Sena’s split into the Thackeray faction and the Eknath Shinde faction in Maharashtra. Singhvi was critical of the Court’s refusal to reinstate Uddhav Thackeray as Maharashtra Chief Minister despite acknowledging the procedural irregularities surrounding the floor test called by Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari.
In a May 2023 judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the improper conduct of the floor test but refrained from reinstating Thackeray, citing his resignation from the post instead of facing the test. Singhvi expressed dissatisfaction with this decision, pointing out the inherent flaws in the procedural handling of the case. He remarked,
“People already became ministers by the time the Shinde judgment came. Flaw was when they refused to stay floor test during notice.”
Singhvi criticized the Court’s rationale, asserting that the refusal to stay the floor test contributed to upholding the defection, thereby creating a situation where there seemed to be no viable remedy.
Singhvi emphasized the importance of fair adjudication, urging the Court to adopt a holistic approach rather than resorting to what he perceived as moralizing or overly rigid interpretation of constitutional provisions.
“At the end of the day, you also have to adjudicate fairly,”
-he asserted, advocating for a balanced and nuanced understanding of complex legal and political issues.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Congress in Court
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
