S. P. Gupta v.

Union of India (1982) – Judges Transfer Case

The primary issue in this case was whether the executive had absolute power to transfer High
Court judges without their consent, or if such transfers could only be made in consultation
with the Chief Justice of India. The case also examined the question of judicial independence
and the separation of powers.

1. The opinion of the Chief Justice of India, while being a significant factor, does
not constitute the sole or decisive consideration in the matter of the transfer
of High Court judges. The executive holds the power to transfer judges, but
such transfers should generally be made after consulting the Chief Justice of
India.
2. The power of transfer should be exercised reasonably, and the executive
should not misuse its authority to transfer judges for extraneous reasons or to
influence the judiciary.
3. The judiciary has a vital role in protecting its independence and ensuring that
transfers do not compromise the impartiality and effectiveness of judges.

SCAORA v. UOI (1993)

These amendments sought to confer upon the Supreme Court the power to frame
rules governing the conditions of service of its employees, including the power to
regulate appointments, promotions, and disciplinary matters.

The SCAORA contended that these amendments encroached upon the judiciary's
independence and violated the doctrine of separation of powers. It argued that the
power to make rules regarding service conditions of court employees should rest
with the Chief Justice of India and not the Parliament.

Ratio: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, established several significant principles
and ratios in the SCAORA v. UOI case:

1. The power to regulate the conditions of service of employees of the Supreme

Court is an essential aspect of judicial independence. Therefore, the
Parliament's encroachment upon this power through legislative amendments
was held to be unconstitutional.
2. The separation of powers doctrine mandates that each branch of government
should function independently within its assigned domain. The judiciary must
have control over its administrative and disciplinary matters to preserve its
independence and ensure the impartial administration of justice.
3. The Chief Justice of India, as the head of the judiciary, is best suited to
exercise the power to frame rules regarding the conditions of service of court
employees. This power is inherent in the judiciary and cannot be usurped by
the executive or legislative branches.
In re Special Reference (1998)

SCAORA v. UOI (2015)

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125

Argumentative points

Points in favour of anti-defection law

 Subversion of Electoral Mandates:

o Defection is the subversion of electoral mandates by legislators
who get elected on the ticket of one party but then find it
convenient to shift to another, due to the lure of ministerial berths
or financial gains seem to be unfair.
o People would have trusted the member and made him the
representative for the ideologies that he and his parties subscribed
to.
o He cannot get the gains and benefits of one party to win elections
and move to another party as at times, people would have voted
him for the brand of the party.
 Affects the Normal Functioning of Government:
o The defection leads to instability in the government and affects the
administration.
o Chaos about the ruling and opposition party.
 Promote Horse Trading:
o Defection also promotes horse-trading of legislators which clearly
go against the mandate of a democratic setup.
o Protecting smaller parties: In multi-party systems, smaller parties
often face the risk of losing their members to larger, more
influential parties. The anti-defection law provides a level playing
field by safeguarding smaller parties from poaching attempts by
larger parties

Points against anti-defection law

1. Violation of freedom of speech and expression: Anti-defection laws can be
seen as infringing upon the fundamental right of elected representatives to
express their views freely and align themselves with ideologies they believe in.
Critics argue that elected representatives should have the freedom to change
parties if they feel that their current party no longer represents their principles
or if they wish to pursue a different political agenda.
2. Limiting representation and stifling dissent: Anti-defection laws can
discourage dissent within political parties and prevent lawmakers from voicing
their disagreements on important issues. Critics argue that these laws create a
culture of forced conformity, where elected representatives are compelled to
toe the party line, even if they have legitimate concerns or alternative
viewpoints. This can limit the diversity of opinions and ideas in the legislative
process.
3. Undermining democratic accountability: Anti-defection laws can hinder the
ability of elected representatives to hold their own party accountable for their
actions. By imposing strict penalties for defection, these laws may discourage
lawmakers from challenging party leadership or questioning policies, as they
risk losing their positions or facing disqualification. This can weaken the
checks and balances within political parties and undermine democratic
accountability.
4. Concentration of power in party leadership: Anti-defection laws can lead to a
concentration of power in the hands of party leaders or a select few, as
lawmakers are deterred from challenging the decisions made by the
leadership. This can result in an erosion of internal democracy within political
parties, with decision-making being centralized and limited to a few
individuals. Critics argue that this can lead to authoritarian tendencies within
parties and limit the representation of diverse voices.
5. Restricting political realignment and coalition-building: Anti-defection laws
can impede the formation of coalitions and political realignments, which are
often necessary in diverse and fragmented political landscapes. In such
situations, elected representatives may need to switch parties to form a
government or advance policy goals. Anti-defection laws can obstruct these
processes and hinder the formation of stable and inclusive governments.
6. Ineffective implementation and potential misuse: Critics of anti-defection laws
argue that they are often selectively enforced or manipulated for political
purposes. There have been instances where ruling parties have used these
laws to disqualify dissenting lawmakers or to coerce them into toeing the
party line. This raises concerns about the fair and unbiased implementation of
anti-defection laws.