The apex court has issued notice to the Centre for its response
NEW DELHI: Observing that there are “enormous issues” with the working of 10th Schedule, Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s plea for interpretation of anti-defection law in order to curb illegal defections through the route of political party merger.Though a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the issue ought to be raised in Parliament, it agreed to examine the matter after Sibal submitted that it would not be addressed in Parliament as it benefits those in power. The court then issued notice to Centre seeking its response.”These are issues typically to be raised before the floor of the House; if not, then at least before political parties. The 10th Schedule is intended to regulate the mechanism between the legislators… We have been seeing it. There are enormous issues with the 10th Schedule. But who made it? It’s the making of the MPs,” bench said.At the outset, Sibal submitted that the issue raised by his petition is very important and could have huge repercussions for the country’s polity. “Electoral verdict can be changed through this process. A majority can become a minority, and a minority can become a majority,” he said.Sibal has personally entered the legal battlefield by petitioning Supreme Court on the working of anti-defection law and said the interpretation of 10th Schedule’s fourth paragraph (which permits mergers) is the need of the hour. Sibal cited many instances of defection and subsequent merger of rebel MLAs and MPs with another party, including those affecting Sena UBT and TMC after the West Bengal elections.Sena UBT has also moved a petition questioning the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to allow the merger of six of its nine MPs with rival Sena party led by Eknath Shinde. Entertaining the petition last week, the apex court sought responses from Centre and Lok Sabha Secretariat.The fourth paragraph of 10th Schedule carves out an exception to disqualification for defections. It provides that members of a House would not be disqualified if their parent party merges with another, or objects to such merger and prefers to function as a separate group. It also says that “the merger of the original political party of a member of a House shall be deemed to have taken place if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger”.
