India’s anti-defection law was enacted in 1985 to curb the culture of “Aya Ram, Jaya Ram” politics, where legislators often switch parties in pursuit of power and patronage. But four decades later, senior advocate Dushyant Dave says the law has failed to achieve its goal.
In an exclusive interview with Kumkum Chaddha, Dave traced the evolution of the anti-defection law, examined the constitutional interpretation of the Tenth Schedule, questioned the Supreme Court’s role in recent political crises, and considered what repeated defections mean for Indian democracy.
From “Aya Ram, Jaya Ram” to the anti-defection law
Describing the Anti-Defection Act of 1985 introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi government as a “very wise and forward-thinking step”, Dave said it reflects Parliament’s intention to restore political morality. But he said this target has been gradually eased. Dave was quoted as saying: “The whole idea was protection. The idea wasn’t to provide loopholes.
Why do defections continue despite the law?
While acknowledging that money and ministerial positions remain powerful incentives, Dave said the defections were driven by a combination of political ambition, organizational failures and weak party leadership. He pointed to the growing financial power of political parties, especially the Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as dissatisfaction within opposition ranks, citing examples of leaders who left the Congress after complaining about limited access to leadership. “There are a range of reasons why people leave. It’s not just about power and money, but also dissatisfaction within the party,” he added.
Table X and the “Operation Lotus” debate.
Much of the conversation focused on how to interpret the anti-defection law. Lawmakers who voluntarily defect from the political party to whose slate they were elected should immediately face disqualification, regardless of how many members defect together, Dave said. He pointed out that “no one wants to read the text of the Tenth Schedule in its literal sense.”
Judiciary, constitutional interpretation and political power
Dave was equally critical of the judiciary’s handling of anti-defection disputes. According to him, the Supreme Court should have insisted that legislators who wish to leave one party for another resign first and seek a fresh mandate from voters. “Today, Prime Minister Modi has extraordinary influence. It takes enormous courage for a judge to take a decision against the government,” Dave said.
Alliance politics and the future of Indian democracy
Looking to the future, Dave argues that coalition politics is likely to remain a defining feature of India’s political landscape, making anti-defection conflicts even more important. “The rot has to stop,” he said, summarizing what he now believes is one of the biggest constitutional challenges facing Indian democracy.
