The Anti-Defection Law, inserted through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, seeks to curb political defections driven by personal gain and ensure stability in elected governments. It disqualifies legislators who voluntarily give up party membership or defy party whips on key votes. While the law sought to protect the sanctity of the electoral mandate and strengthen party discipline, its functioning has invited serious criticism due to operational and constitutional challenges.

Challenges Associated with the Functioning of the Anti-Defection Law

• Bias and Political Influence in Decision-Making

1. 1. 1. The Speaker/Chairperson acts as the adjudicating authority, leading to allegations of bias due to their political affiliation.
      2. Resulting delays allow defectors to continue in office and manipulate numbers (e.g., Karnataka crisis 2019, Maharashtra 2022–23).

• Excessive Control Over Legislators

1. 1. 1. Whips are issued even for routine legislative matters, stifling dissent and converting representatives into party-bound delegates.
      2. Weakens deliberative democracy, debate quality, and autonomy of elected members.

• Misuse of the Merger Clause: The 91st Constitutional Amendment (2003) removed exemption for splits but retained merger provisions, encouraging mass defections by securing two-third support.

• Lack of Time-Bound Decision Framework

1. 1. 1. The absence of statutory timelines enables indefinite delay.
      2. The Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020) recommended a 3-month deadline but enforcement remains weak.

• Narrow Approach Toward Defection: Law addresses only floor crossing inside legislatures; ignores pre-poll alliances, ideological bargaining, coalition instability and political horse-trading.

• No Strong Penalties: Disqualification is insufficient deterrence; defectors often get re-elected or rewarded with ministerial positions.

Suggested Measures for Reform

1. Independent Adjudicating Authority: Transfer powers from the Speaker to an independent tribunal or Election Commission to ensure neutrality.
2. Time-Bound Adjudication: Statutory decision deadline of 90 days to prevent manipulation through delay tactics.
3. Limiting Whip Usage: Restrict whips only to confidence motions, no-confidence motions, and money bills to restore genuine debate.
4. Stronger Punitive Measures: Disqualify defectors from contesting elections for a fixed term (e.g., 5 years) and bar ministerial appointments.
5. Clear Guidelines and Transparency: Implement recommendations of the 170th Law Commission Report and judicial guidelines.
6. Promoting Internal Party Democracy: Encourage democratic decision-making within parties to reduce rebellion born from lack of participation.

The Anti-Defection Law remains crucial to safeguarding political stability and preserving the mandate of the people. However, without institutional reforms, it risks enabling rather than preventing unethical power shifts. A balanced approach – independent adjudication, limited whips, strict penalties and democratic party functioning – can strengthen parliamentary democracy while preserving the spirit of representative governance.