POLITICAL MENACE IN MANIPUR SOLVED?

Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh won a controversial confidence motion in the state
assembly through a voice vote on Monday. Chief Minister proved the majority of his
government in the assembly. A trust motion was moved by the Chief Minister and after
several hours of debate there was a voice vote which the Government won as declared by the
speaker of the assembly. The opposition party created a massive rumpus in the assembly
because the speaker did not take up their no-confidence motion. Congress party held media
conference and questioned the voice vote victory of the Government. They said that Congress
had given a 14 day notice for a no-confidence motion which takes precedence over other
matters of the House. So taking up the trust vote of the ruling party has given rise to many
controversies. The Congress had moved a no-confidence motion against the BJP-led
Government in Manipur on 28th July.

On Monday the session of the assembly came to end with so much drama. The opposition
opposed very strongly the decision of the speaker. Chief Minister of Manipur Biren Singh
said that “By voice vote we won the trust vote. The speaker has done as per rules. The
number of opposition MLAs were less.” On the other side Congress spokesperson
Ningombam Meitei said that ‘today is the day of murder of democracy in Manipur.’ Former
Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh alleged for poll code violations. He said that
there is no rule of law in the State. Eight of the twenty four congress legislators did not take
participation in the vote because two MLAs abstained from voting and six others submitted
their resignation to the speaker. This abstinence and resignation leads to an easy win for the
Government. The Manipur assembly has 53 members currently. The total strength of the
assembly is 60. The victory of the BJP comes in Manipur after much political drama in the
past two months. On 19th June this year Manipur speaker Y Khemchand had disqualified 4
members of the assembly under anti-defection law. And after the resignation of three
legislators the strength of the assembly had decreased to 53. Let us see the law related to
defection in India.

ANTI-DEFECTION LAWS IN INDIA:

Defection leads to instability of the Government and affects the functioning and
administration of the Government. The anti-defection law seeks to provide stability to the
Government. The provision of anti-defection is given in the tenth schedule of the Constitution
of India. The tenth schedule was inserted in the Constitution in 1985 in 52 nd Amendment Act.
This provision lays down the process by which legislators can be disqualified on grounds of
defection by the Presiding officer of the legislature based on a petition by another member of
the House. As per this provision, a member is deemed to be defected if he either voluntarily
gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a
vote. A member defying (abstaining or voting against) the whip of his party can be
disqualified from the membership of the House. This law applies to the Parliament as well as
state assemblies. This law does not specify a time period for the Presiding officer to decide
on a disqualification plea. But this law allows a party to merge with or into another provided
in case at least two-third of its legislators are in favour of the merger. In this case, neither the
members who decided to merge nor the ones who stay with the original party will face
disqualification. In the Year 2003 there was an amendment to the law. There was a provision
according to which if there occurs a split in the original party and as a result of which one-
third of the legislators of the party forms a separate group, they shall not be disqualified. This
led to defection at large scale and hence this provision was deleted.

The Apex Court has interpreted anti-defection law many times. As per law a member is
disqualified if he voluntarily gives up his membership. In the case of Ravi S. Naik v. Union
of India [1994 AIR 1558], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of a formal
resignation by the member, the giving up of membership can be inferred by his conduct.

In the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Ors [1992 SCR (1) 686], it was held by the
Apex Court that decision of the Presiding officer is subject to judicial review. The Court also
clarified that the 10th schedule is constitutionally valid. It does not infringe freedom of speech
and expression and democratic rights of elected members.

Thus, the intention of the anti-defection law is to control political corruption and to
strengthen the democratic values. The law intends to make the members of Parliament more
responsible and loyal to the parties with whom they were associated at the time of election.

Rajeev Ranjan @ Samacharline