Defection in the garb of a merger: The protagonists of the merger need to revisit the tenth schedule of the Indian Constitution

Defection in the garb of a merger: The protagonists of the merger need to revisit the tenth schedule of the Indian Constitution

There is a deluge of views emanating from distinguished persons on the raging controversy regarding the validity of changing of side in the garb of a merger by the five MLAs of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) with the Indian National Congress in Haryana and the whipping boy is the tenth schedule of the Indian Constitution enshrining the anti-defection law. The self-fulfilling interpretation of the provisions of the anti-defection law by the legal eagles to suit a desired end, the suspicion on the non-partisanship of Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and lack of definitive judicial pronouncement on the subject has cast serious doubts on the efficacy of the anti-defection law, and accentuates the need to put the relevant law in its true perspective.
In fact, the para 4 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution enabling the merger of a political party is highly democratic envisaging a “collaborative and participatory working” between the political party concerned and its legislature party consisting of elected representatives in the State Legislature or Parliament whatever may be the case. The law strives to strike a fine balance between the interests of political party and the aspirations of the elected representatives (denoting the will of the people) comprising the legislature party concerned. The contents and intent of the said law lend emphatic credence to the inference that any decision for such merger can only be taken by the original political party in accordance with the rules and procedure as delineated in the constitution of that political party, and to take it further to any logical conclusion must find favour with not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature party concerned. Only a well-considered decision in consequence of due deliberations in concert with each other will sanctify the merger. Hence, it is seemingly erroneous to contend that unilateral decision of the two-third members of the legislature party bypassing the political party ipso facto seals the fate of the latter.
The Apex Court in Ravi S. Naik (1994) while interpreting para 3 of said schedule (has since been repealed by the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003, w.e.f. January 1st, 2004) dealing with split in a political party had intoned that “even if there is 100% merger of the legislature party, without a split in the original party there can be no split”. It is noteworthy that said law of split enshrined in the repealed para 3 contemplated a lesser evil inasmuch as not immediately annihilating the existence of original political party. In consequence of split in original political party, the members of the breakaway faction constituted a separate political party and at the same time the original political party also retained its existence Where as in the present case under para 4 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution, the moment the merger is deemed to be valid, the existence of the original political party (read Haryana Janhit Congress) is wiped out entailing grave identity crisis for its founder & supremo Sh. Kuldeep Singh Bishnoi and other worthy members of the party not having countenanced to such a merger- a bizarre and unthinkable result which could never be intended by the anti-defection law as enshrined in the tenth schedule of the Constitution. Hence, as a corollary to above mentioned legal and factual position, it can be propounded that if split could not legally be effected in a political party under the law of split as was adumbrated in repealed para 3 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution without a split in original political party notwithstanding the fact that all members of the legislature party break away from the political party concerned , a fortiori, the merger of a political party into another political party becomes highly untenable just at the instance of members of the legislature party irrespective of their numbers in the absence of any decision of the political party concerned for such a merger.
However, courtesy to the peculiar constitutional scheme of things, and also relying on the hindsight, it can conveniently be prophesized that by the time any litigative churning-up will settle down and adjudication will attain finality, the term of the present legislative assembly will come to an end.
Since there is no direct authoritative ruling of the Apex Court on the para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the vacuum is being rampantly misused/abused by the unscrupulous political parties and politicians, hence, it will be in the fitness of the things to invoke Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court through a Presidential reference on the vexed question.
Dr RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate and
Visiting Faculty in Law
CPJ College of Higher Studies & School of Law, Delhi