Trust in law

Last weeks decision by the Supreme Court to overrule the Karnataka high court and reinstate 16 members of the Karnataka legislative assembly was a spark for the current,many-sided confrontation between the BJP,the Congress,the JD S and the state governor,H.R. Bhardwaj. The implications of the judgment for the anti-defection law,however,also need close examination and discussion. Ever since the anti-defection law was first passed in 1985 and subsequently strengthened,many of its provisions have been open to multiple readings and many speakers have interpreted them to suit their parties purpose. Now the court has brought clarity to many points.

In this case there were several questions at stake. When,in a highly controversial decision in October 2010,the speaker of the Karnataka assembly disqualified 11 BJP MLAs and five independent MLAs enabling the Yeddyurappa government to survive a trust vote was there a proper process that he needed to follow? Does writing to the governor and asking for a change of CM constitute abandoning your party? Does an independent MLA who takes a ministerial berth give up his independent status and become part of the party he is supporting and has received his cabinet post from? The high court had gone with the speakers view on most of these issues; the Supreme Court has answered those questions differently. The Karnataka speaker,in particular,came in for some pointed criticism from the judges: relying on news reports is not enough,they said,the MLAs should have been permitted to speak for themselves.

This judgment is useful in that it further clarifies some crucial red lines. Independent MLAs stay independent even if they are supporting a government. But,most crucially,the benchs ruling appears to substantiate the point that you cannot be considered to have defected unless you have demonstrated that defection by voting against the government. The application of the anti-defection law has many grey areas,and clarity on some of them is useful. The courts ruling is a reminder that strengthening our legislatures involves re-examining,from time to time,the rules and procedures under which they operate. And the controversies sparked over the past few days should also be a caution against the easy suggestion that often floats around about giving the governor/president the eventual power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the anti-defection law.