G.

VISVANATHAN

Vs.

THE HON'BLE SPEAKER TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,

MADRAS

1996 SCC (2) 353

- Subhajeet Roy, BA0130062

I. INTRODUCTION
The Anti Defection law, or the Xth schedule, came into being in order to curb the
menace of defections and maintain stability of the government. Defection can
either be done by voluntarily giving up membership or voting or abstaining from
voting in a manner contrary to the party whip. While the jurisprudence relating to
both these situations is clear, there is still one question. What happens to a
member once he is expelled from his party? Does he cease to be a member, can he
join another party and not be liable for defection? This is what the present case is
all about

II. CASE BACKGROUND

The appellant was a member of AIADMK in the election held in 1991. He was
subsequently expelled from his party, and declared “unattached.” Soon after, he
joined a new party. He was still held to be liable for defection.
Parties- G Visvanathan, Speaker of TN Legislative Assembly
Bench- AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

III. SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant being a member of TN Legislative Assembly was set up as a
candidate by his party AIADMK. He was soon after expelled from the party and
declared “unattached.” Thereafter, he joined MDMK. This was brought before the
speaker and proceedings for disqualification were initiated.

IV. LEGAL PROVISIONS

Xth Schedule of Constitution
V. ISSUES RAISED
 Whether the Xth Schedule is applicable to a candidate who has been
expelled from his party and thereby declared “unattached?”
 Constitutional recognition of the term “unattached?
 Scope of the term “voluntarily giving up membership

VI. CRUX OF THE JUDGMENT

The appellant, by virtue of joining another political party, has given rise to the
inference that he has voluntariy given up his membership of the political party wo
which he belonged. Even though treating a member as “unattached” does not
enjoy express constitutional recognition, the practice is still not unconstitutional
and such categorization may be done for the sake of convenience.

VII. DETAILED COMMENTARY

If a member by his own volition joins another political party without express
resignation then he is said to have voluntarily given up membership of hos party
and liable for defection. The court has tried to perform a balancing act. On one
hand, there are the rights and priveleges of members of legislature, on the other,
curbing the evil of defection. The court unfortunately, did not go into the question
of whether an unattached member can be made amenable to the party whip, which
I think is the most important question. So, the current scenario seems to be one
where once a Member is declared unattached he ceases to be a member of the
legislative party. But that is an anomaly. The member continues to be a part of the
political party, he no longer represents the legislature party. This is contrary to
what is envisaged under para 1 (b) of the tenth schedule.

VIII. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCLUSION

There have been no similar cases like this yet, so the question of the liability of an
unattached member is still not answered. This just represents one of the major
deficiencies of the tenth schedule, one which should be addressed soon, as there
seems to be no point in continuing to hold an expelled member as a member of the
political party from which he was expelled.