Goa and Maharashtra exemplify the blatant disregard for the electorate’s voice. In the context of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the authentic Shiv Sena is the Shiv Sena- Shinde faction.
This faction chose to merge with the BJP, a decision ratified by the legislative body, thereby legitimising the crossover. The members who did not agree formed another party Shiv Sena (UBT) with a new symbol.
Those who crafted the ‘Tenth Schedule’ of the Constitution recognised that defection undermines the expressed will of voters. They acknowledged that in a democratic context, diverse viewpoints should be honoured. Consequently, they established guidelines delineating the conditions under which an elected official would be disqualified for changing political affiliations. This implies that if a majority of members of party A perceive party B’s ideology to be more aligned with their own, they might consider merging with party B.
Nevertheless, given that party A comprises a contingent of elected representatives in its Legislative branch, a two-thirds majority of this branch must approve the merger to validate it and safeguard the representatives from disqualification.
This foundational principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Maharashtra case recently, yet this directive is abused by legislative bodies that defect unilaterally without the necessary endorsement from the party.
This is the essence of the issue, the misinterpretation of the Tenth Schedule, where it was widely believed that a mere two-thirds of the members of the legislative wing were adequate to circumvent disqualification. This left voters of all backgrounds disillusioned, feeling that their votes held no significance or impact. Even if one casts their vote, the elected officials retain the ability to shift their loyalty abruptly.
Given the substantial stakes in the electoral process, it is unsurprising that voters doubt the sincerity of post-election defections being solely for the purported reason of fostering the development of the constituency.
Each elected member consults their supporters before making a decision. These supporters do not necessarily have to be voters, as the voting process is conducted through secret ballot. In the recent Lok Sabha elections, if we were to tally all the supporters, the BJP would have surpassed the 400 threshold. However, on the day of voting, each supporter exercised their own discretion. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that this aspect was taken into consideration by the architects of the Constitution and the Tenth Schedule. Their intention was for party members to convene and collectively agree to merge their party with another, ensuring that the voice of the entire membership base is heard.
Subsequently, this decision is confirmed by those who were elected to the house. This process is equitable and all-encompassing. Unfortunately, this crucial step is disregarded, which ultimately leaves voters and supporters feeling deceived.
Another facet to consider is that once the parties opt for a merger, the merging entity will cease to exist. This aligns with the essence of merging, signifying that upon elected representatives of Party A choosing to switch sides in accordance with the regulations, Party A will no longer maintain its existence.
Those who remain or decline to join will be compelled to establish a new party bearing a distinct symbol, such as Shiv Sena (UBT). However, this scenario does not apply in Goa, where the Congress continues to thrive and operate effectively.
Girish Chodankar, former President of Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC), has lodged two disqualification petitions against individuals who have defected from the Congress party in the Supreme Court. He asserts that the Supreme Court, in its ruling dated May 11, 2024 in the Maharashtra case, has underscored the significance of political parties as outlined in the Tenth Schedule.
According to the court’s order, MLAs do not possess the authority to determine a merger independently; rather, the original political party’s decision is imperative. The Supreme Court’s directive explicitly articulates that interpreting the term ‘political party’ as the Legislative Party would render the Tenth Schedule impractical. This development indeed instils optimism in the electorate. The crucial question that arises now is: Who will take the initiative to address this issue?
Is it the Speaker, the Election Commission or the Supreme Court?
The High Court has urged the Speaker, who serves as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, to expeditiously resolve the matter. Regrettably, successive speakers have failed to allocate time for these decisions. The Speaker’s role was intended to embody impartiality as a referee in Assembly matters, yet this ideal is not being realised, leaving the electorate feeling dissatisfied.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) website currently displays all the recently elected MLAs who switched allegiance to the BJP as members of the Indian National Congress (INC). It appears that the ECI has not officially recognised this transfer, raising questions about whether they should be the ones making this decision or if this was simply an oversight in updating the site. The Supreme Court is looking to these constitutional bodies to fulfil their responsibilities, which unfortunately seems to be lacking in this instance.
So that leaves the Supreme Court as the sole beacon of hope to rectify the situation and uniformly enforce the ruling established in the case of Maharashtra. Hence, it is imperative, in the interest of democracy and to safeguard the voters’ trust in the system, that each and every one of us implores the Chief Justice of India to promptly address the pending petitions and ensure a thorough implementation of the Tenth Schedule.
Jai Hind.
(The author prefers to write rather than chat in a balcao)