CJP co-convener Saurav Das said Sibal’s proposal should be welcomed, arguing that representatives who change allegiance for money, political inducements or pressure should be barred from contesting elections and holding public office. Founder Abhijeet Dipke described tougher anti-defection safeguards as the “need of the hour”.
The youth-led political platform, which began as an online satirical movement, has gone further than Sibal. Its first demand charter seeks a 20-year prohibition on legislators who defect, preventing them from contesting elections or occupying public office during that period. CJP said the longer bar was intended to deter what it described as the use of financial inducements and political pressure to break parties and destabilise elected governments.
Sibal made his proposal while addressing a discussion on “Horse Trade and Democracy” organised by the Kerala State Committee of the All India Lawyers Union in Kochi. He argued that the constitutional framework governing defections required a comprehensive overhaul because provisions intended to accommodate genuine party mergers could be used to facilitate large-scale switches by legislators.
He proposed replacing the existing arrangement with a provision under which a legislator who changes political allegiance during an elected term would face disqualification and would be unable to contest elections or hold elected or constitutional office for up to 10 years. He also argued that resignation or a claimed merger should not provide an escape from the proposed penalty.
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for disqualification when an elected member voluntarily gives up membership of the political party on whose ticket the person was elected, or votes or abstains contrary to an authorised party direction without permission and without the action being condoned within the prescribed period.
The Schedule, however, contains an exception relating to mergers. A legislator is protected from disqualification where the original political party merges with another party and not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party agree to the merger. That provision has become a central focus of arguments over whether the law adequately prevents organised defections.
Sibal said the merger protection should apply to a genuine merger of political parties rather than what he characterised as a collective walkout by legislators. His proposal would therefore remove the distinction that can allow a sufficiently large bloc of lawmakers to change sides without attracting disqualification.
The debate has gained force because defections have repeatedly triggered disputes over government majorities, Speakers’ decisions and the interpretation of constitutional safeguards. Courts have also been asked in several cases to intervene where disqualification petitions remained undecided for extended periods, adding to criticism that delayed rulings can affect the political balance while a dispute is pending.
The Supreme Court has previously stressed that disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule should be decided within a reasonable period, and in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case indicated that three months would ordinarily be an outer limit, subject to exceptional circumstances.
Supporters of stricter penalties argue that voters choose candidates partly on the basis of party affiliation, symbols and manifestoes, and that post-election defections can alter the mandate without a fresh vote. Critics of broad anti-defection restrictions have long cautioned, however, that excessive party control can weaken legislative independence and discourage dissent by elected representatives.
The present law was introduced through the Constitution’s Fifty-second Amendment in 1985. A provision protecting splits involving one-third of a legislature party was later removed by the Ninety-first Amendment, while the merger exception requiring support from at least two-thirds of legislators remained.
CJP’s intervention places its campaign alongside Sibal’s call for constitutional change while retaining a stricter position on the duration of any ban. Das said the platform’s demand was aimed at treating inducement-driven defections as a serious breach of the electoral mandate rather than merely an internal party dispute.
