Rajdeep Hosts Debate On Anti-Defection Law: Time To Rethink Defection Law? TMC | Shiv Sena (UBT)

[00:00:00]Okay, let's raise the big questions then on that big talking point. Has has the time come to rethink defection laws in this country? Are more safeguards needed? Is defection the freedom to choose a party? Should defections be fully banned or should an individual be asked to step down from his or her office or MPhip before they defect? Just some of the questions I want to raise on my face off. Duchan dete senior advocate Supreme Court of India. Hit Jen, senior advocate Supreme Court and also someone who's been associated with the BJP.

[00:00:38]Duchan Dav to you first. Do you believe given all that we've seen in the last couple of weeks, parties breaking up, splits taking place, mergers with so-called shell parties cross voting in Rajya Sabha elections? Has the time come in your view to rethink defection laws?

[00:00:57]Maybe a person has to resign from his or her party before they can switch sides.

[00:01:05]>> Well, Raj >> or resign his her MP seat rather MP MLA seat. Rajib it is a very very serious challenge to the democracy to the survival to the existence of the democracy but it started way back in 1967 when you remember a congress ML Gamal you know joined another party and then came back to the congress and when he came back the chief then chief minister said now Gamal gayaram isam so you know right from 1967 we have been seeing this the problem is that there is no character left amongst the politicians with great respect and today we are what we are witnessing is nothing but you know what really started way back so you know you can't just blame the BJP of course BJP is responsible because prime minister is always talking about constitutional morality but when it comes to you know this kind of nonsense con prime minister keeps absolute silence so there is no doubt about the fact that this is a challenge to the people of India this is a challenge to the very existence of democracy to the parliament to the legis legislative assemblies to the punchads right from the grassroot level to the highest level. This is now becoming endemic and the only way we can control it is asking whoever wishes to join another party after getting elected on the platform of one particular party to first resign contest recontest and then he can certainly do it on the behalf of the other party. There is nothing but you can't allow that member of punchad or assembly or parliament that be it Raja Sabha Lok Sabha to switch sides merely under the shelter of the 10th schedule which is nothing but a fraud on the constitution.

[00:02:52]So you're calling before I go, you're calling for a oneline addition in a sense to the 10 schedule saying if anyone any individual or group whether you're 2/3 or whatever your number is you must resign from your membership of the assembly or parliament or council before you switch sides. Am I clear?

[00:03:10]That's the one line you want added to the 10 schedule.

[00:03:13]>> Absolutely Rad. problem is that the Supreme Court has you know unfortunately accepted you know this floor test nonsense and we know that all these guys when they you know are taken as we have seen in Maharashtra as we have seen in Madhya Pradesh in Goa in Karnataka state after state under Mr. Modi Congress was using three you know dismissal of the governments presidential dismissal now Mr. Modi is using this you know MLS to cross over you know they are hijacked in planes then they are treated in sevenstar hotels in Assam or somewhere they all come and supreme court says oh there must be voting on the floor and voting must decide but these Johnny's HAVE ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT over so what is the point of that so first this floor test has to go supreme court must rethink about this seriously and if you put this one condition in the 10th schedule that yes now you have you have a free choice you want to go to another party. There's nothing wrong about a congressman thinking of BJP or TMC member thinking of BJP. That's right.

[00:04:15]That's his right. But he must step down then recontest on BJP seat. That's the only way we can stop this rot.

[00:04:22]Otherwise, we can't stop this rot.

[00:04:24]>> Okay.

[00:04:27]So, you're calling essentially for a rethink of the SR BMI case, the floor test. Hit Jen, your view. Do you agree with Duchian dwe that we need to relook at the tent schedule not enough to say if twothirds of the members want to switch and merge with another party even if it is as some are calling it a shell party it's okay if twothirds of ships sa MP suddenly decide they don't like Udav Takra they join the shindai sa who they contested again do you believe that one line needs to be added give up your membership and recontest do you believe that is the way forward >> Rajep I have a different take and my position is simple The anti-defectionection law should it continue? Yes, it must continue. But it must be interpreted and reviewed in a manner that strengthens the democracy and not weakens it. Currently what you are seeing basically political parties have become a hereditary corporations or hereditary ownerships. The internal election system is weak. There is no democracy internal democracy in the political parties and effectively you are seeing a families or certain individuals are falling short in one particular political parties. There is no descent whatsoever. So the real question today is if a substantial majority of the elected representatives of a political party they believe that if their leadership has abandoned the party's original ideology what is the root for them? Should they follow the leadership who has abandoned the original ideology or should they or can they be forced to remain under a leadership regardless of their democratic mandate? For example, in 2019, Shipsa fought as a UT and then it formed an MBA. So that is the reason the legislators felt that you are aing the original ideology. So the problem is the political parties they are do de democratic institution. They are not private parties but the manner in which the political parties are run they have been run as a private parties. So therefore there is a fundamental distinction in law between >> so you don't want any change in the law.

[00:06:34]>> I will just make one point. There is a fundamental distinction between individual defection and collective political alignment. the law, the defection law, anti-defectionection law should deal with the fundamental uh individual defection and not with the collective political alignment.

[00:06:55]>> So how would you do that? What change would you bring in the existing law if any? Would you bring any change or you're saying it's okay if some individuals 2/3 you believe that 2/3 is enough? Do you believe twothirds people decide to leave a party join another one that's okay even if the party is unheard of if it's the nationalist citizenship party of India that has suddenly emerged all of that is okay well in the as I mentioned to you the distinction which I have been drawing between a individual deflection and collectible collective political alignment because in the case of individual defection there can be a possibility of a corruption that is what the anti-defection law aims at preventing that IRM from Gayaram culture. But in the case of collective political alignment, realignment that needs to be supported because the illustration which I gave you when a particular family is ruining the family leadership wants to impose its dictat upon the majority of the legislature should can they not have a right of descent? Can they not have the right to express their views? They they definitely should have a right to move away from a leader who wants to abandon the original ideology of the parties or the principles of the parties.

[00:08:10]You know many will of course say duchan the way look at Britain for example there even individuals can disscent against their party leadership but stay within the party. Now here is hit Jen saying that look if a group feels that the party has abandoned its ideals if the party is uh is not functioning in a democratic way the group should have the right to join someone else individuals in Britain for example can freely disagree they can even uh question or challenge a whip in India today you can't even an individual in fact cannot even challenge his or her party whip so it's become very complicated individuals are constricted but groups are free to join anyone and hit is saying that's not a problem. He's saying if groups want to join so be it. If they don't agree with the party why should they not join.

[00:08:58]Rad there are very serious fundamental issues. I quite agree with Mr. Jin when he says that look you know party leaderships are you know now becoming very unpopular with a group of people within the party because of you know as he rightly says family running them or you know some kind of domination by the leaders. If that's a problem in every party I mean BJP also hardly has any democracy. You should know that. I mean today virtually Mr. Modi and Mr. Shah running BJP and they are selecting anybody and everybody including the BJP president every time. I mean so let's not go into that. Yes I agree. problem is the character of people who are elected and you know the kind of money power that BJP today has it is it's the richest political party in the world and you know these MLAs these punch members these members of parliament are very very you know prone to accepting you know these kind of temptations which are offered which are very substantial we only hear >> you can't legislate character Mr. D Mr. D Mr. D with due regard how do you legislate moral character you can't legislate moral character >> I agree you don't that's why I'm saying that if you were to bring a law which says simply prohibit any kind of a switching of side whether it's a collective conscience or an individual conscience you get yourself reelected you are not prohibited from getting reelected on BJP you like suddenly BJP because you are not happy with Mr. Rahul Gandhi or Mr. Uda takar or mta in your parties fair enough go to Mr. Modi but have the courage and Mr. Modi should accept him saying you first step down we will give you a ticket you contest and then you come back into the assembly or parliament that's how the democracy should be strengthened that's how a person like Mr. Modi should do it because he is today undoubtedly the most popular leader. He has promised you know that there will be clean public life >> with you know this is complete negation of constitutional morality. I mean framers never imagined that our politicians will be like THIS SO CHEAP THAT they have no ideology their only ideology is power and nothing but power.

[00:11:07]So that is the something which has to stop you know at at you know immediately every political party should agree BJP should agree first and you know it will really go a long way in making this country a real democracy >> you know in that sense is the time in a way to you know how you know no the question is this has no but the question just just a minute the question is this has now reached epidemic proportions it's always happened I'm Not saying it was invented by the BJP or it started 2024. It's been happening for years. You get elected on one party symbol on one platform you switch. Don't you think that there is a need for some kind of a check on it because the the money power is staggering that we are told about.

[00:11:53]It's very difficult to prove it but everyone it's the worst kept secret in politics that huge amounts of monies are changing hands every time these defections are taking place. Given all that should there be not some check and if so what is that check?

[00:12:06]>> Rad as I mentioned to you a defection law cannot be judged from the standpoint of whether BJP is powerful Mr. Modi is powerful. That's a very wrong way of looking at it. I I have a different perspective today. If you will see there is a larger concern in India about the political parties and they lack meaningful internal democracy. As I mentioned to you, leadership transitions are often hereditary in most of the cases. Internal elections are weak and they are non-existent. So in a scenario where you have a political her political parties are run like a hereditary corporations. There is there are no lack of internal there are no internal elections virtually there is no democracy in a political.

[00:12:48]>> But how do I LEGISLATE THAT? HOW DO I LEGISLATE THAT?

[00:12:50]>> YOU TELL ME SOMETHING. HOW DO I LEGISLATE?

[00:12:53]>> Abandons it ideology. How do I legislate hereditary leadership?

[00:12:57]>> Correct.

[00:12:58]>> How do I legislate hereditary leadership? Just as I can't legislate moral character, how do I legislate hereditary leadership?

[00:13:04]>> The answer is very clear. You can legislate hereditary leadership in a way because the political parties should agree that there should be a free and fair internal elections that they should allow a meaningful contest within the parties. It cannot be like a airship certificate given to the generations. So you have to agree for a meaningful election process where you are not where it is not rigged in the favor of a particular family but individuals really have stand a chance to get themselves elected to the political leadership because let us look at a situation suppose a particular leader or a particular family they decides to take a view and if you have if you have a particular ideology you abandon the ideology like take the case of Tamil Nadu Congress was in alliance with DMK They fought the elections together with the DMK and what happened when the results happened they switched the side and went across to Vijay is now is that moral is that what do you what will you call them in such cases what do you call such scenario take the case of Mr. question there where you fight in alliance with BJP and then you go and sit with the MBA is that not an opportunism is that not is will it not be called a corruption where is the question of who tak >> yeah so all this now take the case of West Bengal suen and abishek banerjee there was a fight so again there is a case where the particular families they are stalling the rise of the grassroot leaders and there in lies the problem they don't want the grassroot leadership to grow. They don't want internal democracy. They don't want elections properly meaningful within the political parties. All these systems and areas needs to be addressed when we discuss the issues of defection. You cannot discuss only merely on a standalone basis.

[00:14:56]Okay, I'm going to leave it there. It's interesting. Either way, I hope that this debate is taken forward because uh the last time there was an amendment was of course in 2003 when ironically Arun Jetley whom both of you know was the law minister of the country and he had put the two/3s rule in place but times have changed very quickly Duchan 30 seconds >> two things one I don't agree with Mr. Jin that BJP is democracy you know last president Mr. Nada acting president was imposed. The new president is imposed and one day entire Gujarat cabinet including chief minister were sacked. I mean let's not talk about democracy within BJP. Every political party has no democracy. Secondly in England or America people join parties with ideology with principles. Yes they may vote against the party but the ideology principles remain. They vote against the party on policy on certain decisions but the commitment is lifetime. We don't have people who committed lifetime to a political ideology.

[00:15:54]>> Now we are entering now we are entering okay we are entering the political realm. Let's focus as I said at the outset on the law. Either way as I said we need to relook possibly at the laws to strengthen the way our democracy can be seen to be more ethical. You can't legislate ethics, but you can at least put some kind of legislative uh uh provisions that might make it more difficult for the unethical to get away.

[00:16:21]I appreciate two fine voices joining me on my face off today. Thank you both so much. Put teeth in your law.

[00:16:31]>> Okay. Put teeth in the law. Thank you both very much.