The Hindu : A small but significant step

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 25, 2003

National

National

A small but significant step

By K.K. Katyal

New Delhi: The Union Cabinet's latest decision, calculated to check defections, is a small but significant step towards the cleansing of public life and, as such, is to be welcomed. Earlier attempts in this regard were either frustrated by the craftiness of politicians or were not pursued seriously by the ruling establishments. Meanwhile the malady assumed disturbing dimensions, as legislators with fickle loyalties wreaked havoc with the parliamentary apparatus, especially in the State. The system seemed helpless as a handful of unscrupulous politicians made or unmade governments or helped minority dispensations to stay in power.

A major statutory step to deal with the defection menace was taken in early 1985 soon after Rajiv Gandhi took over as Prime Minister. The hopes aroused by what was regarded a wholesome measure were belied because of the loopholes in the anti-defection law, which were thoroughly exploited by the political tribe in pursuit of narrow, personal ambitions. The most abused was the exemption given to splits by one-third of the members of a party in any House — Parliament or State Legislatures. Intended to safeguard the rights of the members against bossism or regimentation, it was invoked by all manner of extraneous purposes. An analysis of the cases where it was made use of in the last 18 years establishes two points — one, because of its frequency, its use became a rule rather than an exception, that it was intended to be and, two, the motivation in all cases, without an exception was functional or personal, not ideological. When the new law, based on the Cabinet decision is enacted, anyone giving up membership of the party in the legislature or voting against its whips would be required to resign and contest again, if so desired. This is certain to act as a damper on unprincipled floor-crossings.

Not all the Presiding Officers covered themselves with glory while taking the crucial decisions on whether the splits were valid or the members incurred disqualification. Being political animals, the presiding officers found it hard to rise above loyalty for the party they belonged to. Even in genuine cases, which were rare, the perception of partiality or tilt could not be brushed aside. They were given these powers in the interest of expeditious decision-taking but, in practice, the verdicts were delayed to help one side or the other. Hopefully, the Presiding Officers would have no role under the modified arrangement. Either courts or the Election Commission could be given the adjudicatory functions.

The idea of a ceiling on the strength of the Cabinets, at the Centre or the States, was first mooted by the Y.B. Chavan Committee (he was the Union Home Minister) in a code of conduct on 1968. This was in the wake of the `aya-ram-gaya-ram' phenomenon in Haryana which threatened to spread to other States. It envisaged two requirements. One, a defector would not get a ministerial post or any other position such as chairmanship or commission before a specified period. Two, the size of the Cabinets at the Centre and the States should be 10 per cent of the strength of the Lower House (11 per cent in the case of bicameral chambers). These suggestions were implemented only in breach. We witnessed jumbo Cabinets, accommodating 20 to 30 per cent of the strength of the House concerned — the U.P. and Bihar. Defectors were inducted in the Cabinets shamelessly, without regard to political ethics. In small States, virtually all members of the ruling dispensation were rewarded in one form or the other. Hopefully such monstrosities will became a thing of the past after a while.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National